INTRODUCTION:

Environmental pollution is among the deadliest threats to our environment and threatens the human and non-human entities living there and the earth as a whole. Therefore, various legal principles and elements have been enacted to facilitate addressing this legal issue. These principles act as the guiding light for persons, authorities, and groups in the quest to curb pollution, Assessment Report on Climate Change. Polluter Pays Principle is among the most fundamental principles. This principle denotes that polluters take full responsibility for the costs of curbing the effects and managing pollution.[1] According to Pearce and Palmer, this principle seeks to encourage polluters to embrace cleaner practices and technologies, which in turn will translate into environmentally friendly actions.[2]

Another important notion, the Precautionary Principle also suggests that preventive action needs to be applied even if the scientist is not sure that anticipated activity can cause environmental damage.[3] Under the irreversibility principle, irreversible damage should be presumed and preventive action always taken in cases where it is suspected that pollutants may cause health problems.[4]

Sustainable Development as expressed in the Brundtland Report of 1987 means development that is to be sustainable in terms of current requirements without compromising the same requirements with regard to the future generation. This principle seeks to pursue the concept of sustainable development whereby the economy is protected as well as the environment; eradication of pollution has to be done in an organized manner.[5]

Also, there have been other more specific conventions in regard to certain pollutants which include the international treaty the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants signed in 2001 and the Minamata Convention on Mercury signed in 2013; these conventions require the cooperation of all the countries in fighting pollution.[6]

International and local laws have also been developed to prevent and ensure compliance to measures of pollution control.[7] For example, Industrial Emissions Directive by the European Union (2010) is intended to address the prevention and control of emissions generated by specific industrial processes while the United States of America’s Clean Air Act (1970) and Clean Water Act (1972) provide legal frameworks over air and water pollution respectively.[8]

STOCKHOLM DECLARATION (1972):

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 was the first major international gathering focused on environmental issues. It marked the beginning of global awareness and cooperation in addressing environmental problems. Some important principles are as follows:

1. Right to a Healthy Environment:
   1. Principle 1: “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.” This principle asserts that all people have the right to live in a healthy environment, which is crucial for their well-being and dignity.
2. Environmental Protection as a Priority:
   1. Principle 2: “The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.” This emphasizes the need to protect natural resources through sustainable management practices.
3. Sovereignty and Responsibility:
   1. Principle 21: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” This principle acknowledges the rights of states to use their resources while also holding them responsible for preventing transboundary environmental harm.

RIO DECLARATION (1992)

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, built upon the Stockholm Declaration. It sought to promote sustainable development globally. Some important principles are as follows:

1. Human-centered Sustainable Development:
   1. Principle 1: “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.” This principle emphasizes the centrality of human well-being in sustainable development efforts.
2. Right to Development:
   1. Principle 3: “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” It underscores the need to balance development and environmental protection for both current and future generations.
3. Environmental Protection in Development:
   1. Principle 4: “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.” This principle integrates environmental protection into the broader development agenda.
4. Public Participation:
   1. Principle 10: “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.” It promotes transparency and public involvement in environmental decision-making.
5. Precautionary Principle:
   1. Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.” This principle advocates for precautionary measures to prevent environmental degradation even when scientific certainty is not fully established.
6. Polluter Pays Principle:
   1. Principle 16: “National authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.” It asserts that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.

KYOTO PROTOCOL (1997):

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by committing industrialized countries to limit and reduce greenhouse gases according to agreed individual targets. Some important principles are as follows:

1. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: This principle acknowledges that while all countries are responsible for addressing climate change, developed countries should take the lead due to their historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

 PARIS AGREEMENT (2015):

The Paris Agreement, adopted at COP 21 in Paris, France, in 2015, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Some important principles are as follows:

1. Global Temperature Goals: The agreement aims to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.
2. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Each country must outline and communicate their post-2020 climate actions, reflecting their highest possible ambition.

These declarations and principles form the backbone of international environmental law and policy, guiding nations in developing regulations and commitments to protect the environment while fostering sustainable development.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES:

Environmental principles have evolved through legal precedents and international declarations to guide sustainable development and resource management. Key principles include the public trust doctrine, mandating the State as the trustee of natural resources for public benefit; the precautionary principle, advocating preventive action in the face of environmental harm; the polluter pays principle, ensuring that those responsible for pollution bear its costs; and the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, promoting balanced growth that meets present needs without compromising future generations. These principles are enshrined in legal frameworks and guide judicial decisions to protect and enhance the environment.

1. POLLUTER PAY: The PP is a well-known environmental law principle that has been embraced and implemented in India. This principle seeks to make the polluters bear the consequences of their actions through proper costing exercises of how to prevent, contain and minimize impact of environmental pollution. It is a legal principle in India written in various Indian environmental laws and supported by court decisions. Perhaps just as recognized as Principle 15 is the Polluter Pays Principle, which has been adopted in numerous domestic and international environmental legislations and conventions.

The Constitution of India by way of the 42nd amendment in the year 1976 with added provisions under the numbers 48A and 51A (g) laid down a full-fledged legal duty upon the State and the Citizen alike to protect and improve the environment.[9] Both the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and the National Environment Policy of 2006 formally adopt the PP as one of the policy frameworks for regulation of the environment.[10]

In fact, the Supreme Court of India has not only upheld the Polluter Pays Principle but also enhanced its acknowledgement through its judicial decisions. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)[11] the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that the PPPT is an integral part of the Environmental Legislations of the country and it has to be enforced by the Statutory Bodies.[12] Likewise in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[13], the Court asked and required polluters to pay for damages arising from their industrial operations.[14]

The National Green Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body in India recognized in 2010, and has provided significant contribution in implementing the Polluter Pays Principle as well as passing the orders to make polluters compensate for environmental degradation. For example, in the Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013)[15] it ordered ₹100 crores to be paid as a penalty for polluting the environment.[16]

Internationally, the PPP was recognized and integrated into many environmental treaties and policies. The concept of Polluter Pays Principle was formalized by OECD[17] in 1972 and this principle has been integrated into many global treaties and agreements like The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 and The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992.[18]

Through legal provisions, judicial decisions, and compliance with international environmental conventions, India has moved towards implementation of PPM through establishing polluter pays principle, indicating its resolve to make polluters responsible for pollutions costs including costs of remedying of pollution and/or prevention of such actions.

2. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:

Another important principle of the Indian legislation in the sphere of environmental protection is the Precautionary Principle which focuses on prevention of probable damaging impact on the environment even in the case of absence of definite scientific data proving the efficacy of the preventive actions. This principle has indeed been acknowledged and incorporated in Indian laws and judicial precedents.

The National Environment Policy of 2006 further classifies the Precautionary Principle as one of the guiding principles of environmental administration.[19] The Indian Supreme Court has also relied on and applied the Precautionary Principle in number of cases including; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)[20], in this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the Precautionary Principle as part of the environmental law of the country. The Court stated that the Precautionary Principle makes it mandatory for the government to anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation, even in the absence of scientific certainty. & A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (2001), The Supreme Court upheld the Precautionary Principle and held that the Board should not have granted permission for the establishment of a chemical industry without assessing the potential risks to the environment and public health. The Court emphasized that the Precautionary Principle is a statutory principle and must be followed.[21]

Internationally, the Precautionary Principle has been incorporated into many International environmental conventions and policies including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000). The principle acknowledges that scientific knowledge is frequently inconclusive and contingent, often indicating that undertaking an analysis at some point might lead to an irretrievable degradation of the environment.[22]

3. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

Sustainable Development is a key principle in Indian environmental law and policy which seeks to ensure that there is sustainable growth and development of the economy while maintaining the integrity of the environment. This principle seeks to balance the satisfaction of the current generation needs without overburdening the future generations with similar needs.

According to the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Indian Constitution in Article 48A and Article 51A (g), the State and each citizen have a responsibility to protect the environment for sustainable development.[23]

The National Environment Policy NEP of 2006 embraces Sustainable Development as one of the principles of environmental management in India.[24] This policy embraces participation of environmental issues in development and encouraging sustainable consumption.

In the present scenario, the Supreme Court of India has a very progressive role in the implementation of Sustainable Development. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996[25], the Court deliberated on the principle of sustainable development, while recognizing the need to establish a proper balance between economic development and environmental conservation.

Sustainable Development as a principle was recognized internationally by the Brundtland Report in 1987 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 as well as the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015.

India has also adopted different measures in ensuring sustainable development including the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC)[26] launched in 2008 and National Mission on Sustainable Habitat (NMSH)[27] launched in 2010 in the country The measures include energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable urban planning among others.

The Indian government has also succeeded in aligning Sustainable Development principle across its legal system, policies and international agreements meaningfully to ensure economic, social and environmental sustainability for the current and future generations.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & TRANSPARENCY:

The philosophy of Public Participation and Transparency is one of the key foundational principles of environmental governance in Independent India, which entitle the people to information and participation in matters concerning environment.

The RTI Act of India has enshrined within the Indian Constitution the citizens’ right to access information held by public authorities, including anything that pertains to environmental issues.

The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006) also states that public should be involved in the decision making process of projects which have potential environmental effects.[28]

The NGT, which was set up in 2010, has been instrumental in increasing public interest and transparency in issues of environmental concern. Different orders have been passed by the NGT to stress on the need for consultation and access to information in different environmental matters.

Internationally, the right of Public Participation and Access to Information has been affirmed and included within different environmental treaties and conventions including the Aarhus convention (1998)[29], and the Rio declaration on environment and development (1992).

India has also endeavoured to increase public engagement and openness as regards environment issues, like the creation of the National Green Tribunal as well as the Right to Information Act. Yet more work remains to be done in order to promote public participation and increase the availability of information, which is especially important for environmental decision making.

India has adopted Public Participation and Transparency as a legal principle in its legal system and in its decision making mechanism with an objective to increase accountability, transparency and public participation in environmental management in order to meet the international standard and accepted principles.

5. POLLUTION PREVENTION & CONTROLL:

Pollution Prevention and Control, as a principle, highlights the need to focus on source control rather than applying treatment at the end part of the pipe and on cleaner production, resource use efficiency and waste minimization. In India, various environmental laws and regulations have been enacted to address pollution prevention and control, such as: 

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides a comprehensive legal framework for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Regulates the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Aimed at preventing and controlling water pollution.
• The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016: Regulates the management and disposal of hazardous wastes.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has played a significant role in enforcing pollution prevention and control measures through its judgments. For instance, in the case of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (2017), the NGT directed the implementation of a comprehensive action plan to address air pollution in the National Capital Region.[30]

Internationally, the principle of Pollution Prevention and Control has been recognized in various environmental agreements and frameworks, such as the Montreal Protocol (1987)[31] and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001)[32].

6. POLLUTER ACCOUNTABILITY:

The main Policy of Polluter Accountability underscores the need to provide legal controls and ensure that punitive measures and clean-up costs are charged to offenders who fail to obey the legal requirements set by Polluter.

In India, the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010 enshrines an organized judicial authority to hold the polluters liable and to levy penalties and compensation for environmental wrongs.

Through certain key and landmark cases, Supreme Court of India has been instrumental in establishing polluter pays principle. In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)[33], to deal with this problem the Supreme Court of India formulated the principle of absolute liability for hazardous and inherently dangerous activities, where by the polluter was made absolutely liable to compensate for any harm caused to the environment.[34]

Internationally, Polluter Accountability principle has been given recognition in numerous environment treates and agreements including the Basel Convention for the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal signed in 1989[35] and the Minamata Convention on Mercury signed in 2013[36] among others.

7. PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE:

In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court of India affirmed that the public trust doctrine is an integral part of Indian jurisprudence, derived from English Common Law. This doctrine posits that the State is the trustee of all natural resources, which are inherently meant for public use and enjoyment. Resources such as the seashore, running waters, air, forests, and ecologically fragile lands are intended to benefit the public at large. Consequently, the State has a legal duty to protect these resources, which cannot be converted into private ownership.

Indian courts frequently base their judgments on this doctrine, reflecting the constitutional mandate to preserve the environment and maintain ecological balance as outlined in Article 48-A. The State is urged to prioritize environmental issues due to their significant and widespread implications.

Justice Chinnappa Reddy, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, emphasized that whenever ecological issues are brought before the court, it must consider Article 48-A, as well as Article 51-A (g), which underscores the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to show compassion for living creatures. The court should actively implement the Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, rather than defer to policy-making authorities.

The term ‘protect’ implies that the State must safeguard the existing natural environment, while ‘improve’ suggests that the State should enhance the quality of the environment if it is degraded or degrading. This dynamic interpretation requires the State to take deliberate actions and impose restrictions on resource use that adversely affect the environment.

Courts have repeatedly referred to the constitutional obligation under Article 48-A in various judgments. For instance, in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that the right to health and medical aid, essential for protecting the health and vigor of women, is a fundamental right when Article 21 is read in conjunction with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, and 48-A. This ensures that the life of a worker is meaningful and dignified.

Additionally, the State has a duty to raise awareness and educate the public about environmental issues.

8. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION:

The principle of International Cooperation emphasizes the need for addressing transboundary pollution and global environmental issues through collaborative efforts, promoting knowledge-sharing, technology transfer, and harmonized standards.

India has actively participated in various international environmental agreements and conventions, demonstrating its commitment to international cooperation in addressing environmental challenges. Some examples include:

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): India is a party to this convention and has submitted its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): India is a party to this convention and has developed a National Biodiversity Action Plan to implement its provisions.
• Basel Convention: India is a party to this convention, which regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

At the regional level, India has participated in initiatives such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), which aim to promote regional cooperation and address environmental issues.

Internationally, the principle of International Cooperation has been recognized in various environmental agreements and frameworks, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)[37] and the Paris Agreement (2015)[38].

9. INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY:

The principle of Intergenerational Equity emphasizes the need to consider the rights and interests of future generations in environmental decision-making and resource management.

In India, the principle of Intergenerational Equity has been recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court in various landmark cases. In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)[39], the Court emphasized the need to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations.[40]

The National Environment Policy (2006) and the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008) have also incorporated the principle of Intergenerational Equity, acknowledging the need to protect the environment and natural resources for future generations.

Internationally, the principle of Intergenerational Equity has been recognized in various environmental agreements and frameworks, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1994)[41].

CASE LAWS:

Some of the important case laws are as follows:

1. Research Foundation for Science vs Union of India (2005)[42]: The Supreme Court invoked the Precautionary Principle and banned the use of the pesticide endosulfan due to its potential harmful effects on human health and the environment, despite the lack of full scientific data.
2. Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014)[43]: The National Green Tribunal quashed the environmental clearance granted to a mining project due to non-compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, emphasizing the importance of the EIA principle.
3. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012)[44]: The Supreme Court recognized the principle of Intergenerational Equity and the need to preserve natural resources for future generations in the context of forest conservation.
4. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987)[45]: The Supreme Court upheld the principle of Public Participation and Transparency, emphasizing the importance of public consultation and access to information in environmental decision-making processes.
5. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2009)[46]: The Delhi High Court, relying on the Precautionary Principle, directed the government to regulate the use of polluting materials during the festival of Diwali to protect the environment and public health.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, it can be noted that India has shown earnestness towards integrating/various Environmental Principles 7 into its legal system and applying/executing them effectively. Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, Public Participation and Transparency, Prevention of Pollution and Control, Polluter Accountability, Stockholm Treaty, International Cooperation, Intergenerational Equity, Environmental Assessment and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control had been acknowledged and upheld as principles in various laws, policies and Judgments.

The legal guidelines including the principles of Polluter Pay Principle, Precautionary principle, and Sustainable development of Environmental Resources have been practiced and implemented in India by the Indian judiciary, especially by the Supreme Court of India and The National Green Tribunal. As will be seen through these judgments the law has sought to encourage such principles as polluter pays principle, prevention of harm to the environment, the welfare of the public, sustainable development and the rights of those who have not been born.

In another way, India’s attempt to signatures and ratify various other international environmental agreements is evidence of its intentional actions towards coping environmental issues on a global level and enhancing the compliance of global standards in the country.

Nonetheless, while there has been a positive trend towards legal writing incorporating consideration of environmental impact, further work is still needed to ensure these principles are effectively implemented and adhered to in practice in relation to different sectors and geographical locations. Increasing institutional development, raising awareness about the subject, and developing partnerships regarding the different stakeholders will be essential for sustainable development and environmental improvement for current and coming generations.

Thus implementing and adhering to the above mentioned principals of environmental sustainability, India has set paramount framework toward achieving judicious and sustainable economic growth and hence creating a sustainable world for the intended inhabitants in India and other parts of the world.

IMPORTANT STUDY MATERIALS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES, CASES, DECLARATIONS, AND LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA:

Books:

1. “Environmental Law and Policy in India” by Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz (Oxford University Press)
2. “Environmental Jurisprudence in India” by P. Leelakrishnan (LexisNexis)
3. “Environmental Law in India” by Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz (Oxford University Press)

Cases:

1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
4. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)
5. Research Foundation for Science vs Union of India (2005)
6. Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014)
7. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001)
8. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (NGT, 2013)
9. Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (NGT, 2013)
10. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2012)

Declarations and Conventions:

1. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
3. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
4. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001)
5. Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013)
6. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes (1989)

Legislations:

1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
2. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
4. The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
5. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
6. The Right to Information Act, 2005
7. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
8. The National Environment Policy, 2006
9. The National Action Plan on Climate Change, 2008
10. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

[1] Emissions Trading Scheme. (2022). The Polluter Pays Principle. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Emissions_Trading_Scheme

[2] Pearce, D. W., & Palmer, C. (2001). Public and Private Spending for Environmental Protection: A Cross-Country Policy Analysis. Fiscal Studies, 22(4), 403-456.

[3] Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., … & Stoto, M. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental health perspectives, 109(9), 871-876.

[4] Martuzzi, M., & Tickner, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children.

[5] Dernbach, J. C. (1998). Sustainable development as a framework for national governance. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 49, 1.

[6] Selin, H. (2014). Global environmental law and treaty-making on hazardous substances: the Minamata Convention and mercury abatement. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 1-19.

[7] Milieu Ltd. (2010). Study on the Competitiveness of the European Companies and Resource Efficiency. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/enveco/eco_industry/pdf/annexes_competitiveness_eu_companies.pdf

[8] EPA. (2022). Summary of the Clean Air Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

[9] Divan, S., & Rosencranz, A. (2001). Environmental law and policy in India. Oxford University Press.

[10] MoEF. (2006). National Environment Policy. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

[11] Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212

[12] Supra See 9.

[13] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India: AIR 1996 SC 2915

[14] Supra See 9.

[15] Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) AIR SCW 3231, 2013 (4) SCC 575,

[16] NGT. (2013). Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India & Others. National Green Tribunal, India.

[17] OECD. (2022). Polluter-Pays Principle. https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/polluter-paysprinciple.htm

[18] UN. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations.

[19] Supra See 10.

[20] Supra See 13.

[21] Supra See 9.

[22] UN. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations.

CBD. (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity.

[23] Supra See 9.

[24] Supra See 10.

[25] Supra See 13.

[26] NAPCC. (2008). National Action Plan on Climate Change. Government of India.

[27] NMSH. (2010). National Mission on Sustainable Habitat. Government of India.

[28] Supra See 10.

[29] UNECE. (1998). Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

[30] NGT. (2017). Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India. National Green Tribunal, India.

[31] UNEP. (1987). Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.

[32] UNEP. (2001). Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. United Nations Environment Programme.

[33] M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819,

[34] Supra See 9

[35] UNEP. (1989). Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. United Nations Environment Programme.

[36] UNEP. (2013). Minamata Convention on Mercury. United Nations Environment Programme.

[37] UN. (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations.

[38] UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

[39] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169

[40] Supra See 9.

[41] UNCCD. (1994). United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations.

[42] Research Foundation for Science vs Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186

[43] Goa Foundation v. Union of India, Appeal No. 10/2013 (NGT)

[44] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277

[45] Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295

[46] Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, 209 (2009) DLT 22