This article is written by Shristi Sahu, and further updated by Shamyana Parveen. In this article, the author explains about the historical background of polluter pays principle, importance, and its principles in the context of India. It also provides the flaws of the polluter pays principle and discusses some landmark judgements.

Introduction

The “Polluter Pays Principle” (hereinafter referred as “PPP”). It is required for the protection of the environment and for the living things. It is also required to protect the natural resources for the future generation.  The ppp is the most important principle of sustainable growth. It is extremely important for everyone to understand environmental laws.

It is a principle and a constitutional mandate. Its main objective is to control environmental degradation. According to this principle, the polluter has to bear the price for polluting the environment.

Before explaining more about the ppp as how it applies or its importance, first we should understand the term “PPP”. So let me explain about the term “PPP”.

What is the Polluter Pays Principle

The “Polluter Pays” principle is the widely-studied practice by which polluters have to incur costs. Polluters should be responsible for managing pollution because they should take costs of managing pollution when it endangers human health or the environment. 

Take for instance the incident of the Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India (1989) (popularly it is known as Bhopal Gas Leak case). The pollutants which seeped into the groundwater years ago still forms the reason for cancer, growth retardation and dizziness. Let alone the immediate impact of the leakage. The deadly methyl isocyanate (It is an organic chemical compound and it is extremely toxic. It is used in making adhesive, pesticides and insecticides), which drifted into the sleeping city causing the death of thousands of inhabitants within a few days. Such incidents in the past further necessitate mandating principles for combatting the effects of pollution.

High amounts of pollutants emitted by the vehicle, put forth the question of whether the owner or the manufacturer will be liable for the pollutants emitted. The scope and extent of the ppp is explained in this article.

Remediation of the damaged environment is an integral part of the concept of ‘sustainable development’ and therefore the polluter is responsible for paying the cost to every affected individual as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. Under this principle it is not the place of the government to bear the expenses incurred in either, prevention of such damage, or in undertaking corrective measures since this has been for the indemnity cost of the pollution event to be highlighted into the taxation payer.

The polluter shall bear the obligation to pay and remedy all the losses wrought by his omission. This is the very epitome of the ppp. In the legal system the absolute liability of hazardous products has been acknowledged in different countries.

A naturally dangerous industry is the high-water mark of the development of the ppp.  While the doctrine has a discouraging effect on aspiring polluters. Its application within the framework of the law lacks breadth in the feeling that it can work productively  only when pollution has taken place only in the remedial stage.

To know more about this, click here.

Now, we are going to discuss the historical background of “PPP”. So let’s start.

Historical background of Polluter Pays Principle

Origin of the Polluter Pays Principle

The Industrial Revolution came in the late 18th century. That was a time when people dealt with their economy as an agricultural and crafting and then graduated to industrial and mechanical. It divided the number of factories and the concept of mass production in the economies.

However, there is always a flip side to the same coin and the same applies for the industrial revolution. So, are the opportunities and threats of the industrial revolution. On the one hand, the industrial revolution has revealed a wide potential where people’s lives can be in the 21st century. You will remember that the industrial revolution wrought certain changes to the people’s way of life.

The new technologies came such as, textile industry, electricity, engine etc. The people of that time moved from rural areas to urban areas in search of employment. While on the other hand, the industrial revolution also brought industrial pollution. Technology has developed dramatically and manufactured products have replaced archaic products. The by-products are the inevitable part of the manufacturing process.

The ppp was formulated in 1972 by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a policy instrument which formed policies on environment under which the polluter pays for the cost of polluting the environment. The OECD formulated this principle because it is needed for many reasons, which are as stated below:

• The main cause of environmental destruction is the increasing number of industrialization and economic activities. So, there was a need to control pollution by applying the principle of ppp.
• This principle encourages fairness and equality by ensuring the cost of pollution control on those people who are responsible for causing pollution, rather than on taxpayers or others.

The member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) vowed to domesticate their environmental policies with the ppp. For instance the guidelines on ppp formulated by OECD were meant to dissuade subsidies that may result in distortions on trade. They championed that principle when the public was highly concerned with environmental problems.

This was at a time when there was pressure on the government and other institutions to come up with policies and structures to protect the environment and the people from the dangers of pollution in a post industrialised world.

In the last years many discussions were undertaken referring to the characteristics of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, about its meaning but nevertheless, the question of its scope and the consequences connected with it for the persons who were involved in already past or potentially polluting activities was never sufficiently solved.

Even where it has been accepted, its extent often has been in doubt, particularly in relation to liability for damage payments. It is more of a pointer to a preferred line of behaviour, although it must be said that outside of the noble sentiments, the principle has arguably never been fully met under either European Community or British environmental law. 

Yet, there is definition evidence how the principle is related to the idea of ‘better safe than sorry’. Furthermore, the cost should encompass all environmental costs irrespective of how measurable the last cost might be. This is often argued for example, that the producer may pollute so long as he incurred the cost – which is actually a misinterpretation of the conceive principle and general applicability.

Although the definition of the principle carries certain difficulties, it has been widely accepted by the European Community, which classifies it as one of the key aspects of its approach to the set problems concerning the environment. The Action Programme on the Environment has indicated the following as the guidelines of the environmental policy of the European Community. They are set out in Article 130R(2) of the Treaty and these are the most important ones. They are as follow:

• They indicate how preventive action is to be preferred to remedial measures;
• Pollution of the environment especially in developed nations should be fixed at the roots;
• The cost of protection of the environment should be born by the polluter;
• It was widely argued that environmental policies ought to be an element of the other policies of the European Community.

Hence, the proposal to pay for the damages to the environment is that of the “polluter pays”.

In addition, Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration of 1992 states “ppp”. It stipulates that national authorities should strive to extend the globalisation of cost of the environment and the application of economic instruments with regard to the approach — polluter pay — bearing in mind that the polluter should, in most cases, pay for pollution with due regard to public interest and without undue prejudice to international trade and investment.

Introduction of Polluter Pays Principle in India

PPP has come to the global limelight since the 1972 Stockholm Declaration whereby polluters shall pay for the cost of degradation. India after signing the Stockholm Declaration, started the process of integrating its regional and national policies with the international environmental standards. The adverse environmental impacts emerged from improving industrialization processes which were more severe during the 1970s and 1980s specifically in the areas of water pollution – rivers, air quality and waste management.

This principle was adopted through some judicial interpretation which are mentioned below:

• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996)
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996)
• M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal NAth (1997)

In Research Foundation for Science (18) vs. Union of India (2005), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has stated that the “ppp” in its broad sense encapsulates the proposition that the manufacturer of goods or other commodities is bound to pay the cost in the form of preventing the pollution that results from production, or in the form of abating the pollution where it has already occurred is imposable.

Thus, environmental cost together with people or property cost is embraced, costs of preventing pollution that can be prevented are also included not just the costs of damage control for pollution that has occurred.

It will contain all the costs of the environment, and not simply those which are easily measurable. But this principle does not suggest that the polluter can pollute and simply compensate for it. Although the scope and the degree of cost are variable and actual, the principle of cost will certainly be relevant in one or other form for any given situation.

Now, let us discuss some implementation mechanisms in enforcing this principle.

Implementation mechanisms in enforcing the Polluter Pays Principle

The government has a very crucial task of ensuring that the ppp is implemented to the latter. The government entails different policies and laws to effect this principle. Some of them are mentioned below:

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

The CPCB is functioning under the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The one that exercises supervisory authority over environmental laws It is also charged with the responsibility of implementing the environmental laws. It controls the pollution index of the environment with respect to air and water and has some discharge standards. It audits as well as makes directions to industries in order to take the right steps. It punishes industries by using fines and penalties on everything that goes against the norms and formally sets laws of the environment.

State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)

The SPCB produces rules and guidelines to be implemented. It also embarked on some awareness making programs on controlling pollution and the protection of the environment. The state environmental laws are implemented through fines on industries, and the amount of fines is dependent on the extent of infringement of rules.

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a judicial tribunal that primarily hears environmental matters. This Act came into force in the year 2010. This Act has been passed under the provision of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and under this Act, everything has been said about the right to live in a clean environment. It supervises environmental issues and ensures that polluters are made to suffer the consequences.

To know more about this, click here.

Environmental Protection Act, 1986

This Act gives some power to the Central Government for safeguarding the environment-retroactively. In this Act, provisions related to polluter pays principle are also discussed. At the beginning of the Act, in the preamble, the goals of the Act are declared to be aimed at preserving and enhancing the environment.

To know more about this Act, click here.

Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016

This Act governs the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. It also safeguards the prospect of making the cost of safe disposal and clean sites to be paid by the polluter. Its general objective is to promote the reduction of hazardous wastes as well as to facilitate their recycling and reusing.

To know more about this, click here.

Now, moving forward, let’s discuss the importance of the ppp.

Importance of Polluter Pays Principle

PPP has become more of a popular slogan in recent times. This however never negates the cardinal rule that has come to be embraced as true – if you are the one to make the mess then it is your responsibility to clean it up. This is the main basis of this slogan. It should be mentioned that in environmental law, the ‘ppp’ does not refer to “fault”, but it prefers a curative approach, which is more interested with rehabilitation of the affected ecological systems. The importance of ppp is stated below:

• It is a principle of international environmental law in which the cost shifting takes place whereby the polluting party compensates the environment for the harm caused to it.
• It is regarded as a custom because it has received huge support in most organisations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development foreign countries, particularly, the member countries of OECD and European Community (EC) countries. In international environmental law as what is seen under the law, the principle is rarely mentioned.
• In the recent past, the ppp is perceived as a methodology of cost-allocation of pollution costs and liabilities. Concerning which/what we shall examine within the framework of the economic rationality of the enterprise.
• Correlation between its environmental policy and the socioeconomic policy pertaining to its country.
• Furthermore, under this principle it is not their task to pay for the costs of either prevention of pollution, or to exercise the duties of fixing liability, since the result of such action is to transfer the cost implications of the pollution incident to the taxpayers.
• However, the State practice does not support the belief that all the cost of de-pollution should come from the polluter, especially when crossing the transnational dispute is involved.
• The ppp can be effective in eliminating the continued degradation of the environment.
• The principle places a fee on emission of greenhouse gases that equals the cost incurred by the environment. Thus making the polluter bear the cost that was otherwise borne by others.

According to WHO statistics, 99% of the global population are exposed to air that transgress WHO guideline limits of pollution; for low and middle income countries, exposure is the highest. This is likely to affect community health in a global way. In this case, the regulation of the ppp would be beneficial in the sense that it would cut on the cost through emissions reduction. Therefore, the principal can contribute to the reduction of cost of pollution through minimising emissions from within the environment.

To know more about its importance, click here.

As above we discussed the importance of the ppp, there are some challenges in enforcement of this principle. So, let’s discuss it.

Challenges in enforcement of Polluter Pays Principle

There are many positive impacts of ppp and there are also some shortcomings. So, let’s discuss some of them which are as follows:

Identifying polluters

Firstly, there is still confusion on defining ‘who is a polluter’. In legal terminology, a ’polluter’ is the individual who harms the environment, finally or directly or indirectly gives rise to circumstances with regard to such damage. In any case, this definition is wide enough that it encompasses any action taken in the course of doing business unfavourable in some circumstances and rather unfavourable in others.

Insufficient incentives

Secondly, poor households with low economic status, informal firms, and small businesses and farmers can bear no extra costs for energy or for waste management or disposal in their locality.

Resource constraints

Thirdly, small and medium-size firms from the formal sector which are predominantly confined to the consumer home market since they are unable to pass through the cost to the final consumer home market of their products.

Customer demand

Fourthly, cost passing through strategy to end users is normally beyond the reach of exporters in developing nations. It is internalisation of foreign customers because customer demand is elastic.

Common pool resources

Finally, it reveals that most environmental issues in developing nations are caused by overexploitation of common pool resources. Availability of these common pool resources (as could be envisaged in the ppp) might be restrained in some cases by a delegation of private property rights, however, this solution is likely to cause rather severe distributional concerns.

Now, let me discuss some issues with compliance.

Issues with compliance

• Some of the small and medium companies cannot afford advancement technologies and processes.
• There are many polluters who don’t even understand their duties towards environment protection.
• The polluters may fail to adopt environmentally friendly practices because of weak or poorly designed incentives for compliance.
• Delaying compliance efforts among the polluters because of the long process of enforcement.

Now moving forward to discuss some recommendations for strengthening the ppp.

Recommendations for strengthening

• Strengthening the rules and legal frameworks, and eliminating loopholes.
• Adopt modern technologies and enhance the monitoring system.
• Promotes public awareness.
• Solving transborder issues encourages international cooperations.
• Implementing flexible cost allocation schemes that could apply for small-scale polluters.

Now, let me discuss some impact of the ppp on environmental protection.

Impact of Polluter Pays Principle on environmental protection

There are some positive impacts of this principle on environmental protection.

Encourages accountability

The ppp ensures that the polluters should bear the cost of pollution and responsibility towards the environment.

Reduction in pollution

The penalties imposed under the ppp discourage the polluters from damaging the environment by their activities. So, it reduces the pollution.

Promotes sustainable development

It promotes sustainable development by encouraging the industries in making changes towards the eco-friendly alternatives. Sustainable development means an integration of developmental and environmental imperatives. Sustainable development is essentially a policy and strategy for continued economic and social development without detriment to the environment and natural resources on the quality of which continued activity and further development depend.

Supports environmental restoration

The ppp penalties collection from the polluters used in rehabilitating damaged ecosystems by cleaning up the polluted rivers and reforesting degraded lands.

Now, we are going to discuss the impact of this principle on businesses and industries in India.

Impact of the Polluter Pays Principle on businesses and industries in India

The ppp is a policy tool that has tremendous bearing on businesses and industries of India. Here are some key impacts:

1. Increased compliance costs: Businesses and organizations are obliged to place money into environmental care mechanisms to help reduce pollution. This was the case of investing in devices and systems that lower emissions, cleaning up waste before the disposal and basically using cleaner production processes.
2. Financial liability: Those firms that pollute the environment must be in a position to meet the cost of correcting their mistakes. This financial implication can be very huge particularly where there is massive environmental degradation. For example, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the LG Polymers gas leakage recently, indicates serious economic penalties for the companies.
3. Enhanced corporate accountability: The desire of the ppp for companies to adopt clean policies and become more productive. This principle can lead to corporate sustainability standards in order for organisations to bear the costs they inflict in the environment.
4. Market competitiveness: While environmental regulation can be costly, it may also be possible for customers to compel firms to search for new technologies. Soap LFB that buys energy efficient products and relates to environment conservation may afford to develop branded images that will help pull consumers and investors in the market in general.
5. Legal and regulatory pressure: By time industries have deployed the ppp through the legal frameworks and judicial systems has increased zeal to summon more regulatory attention. Every kind of business activity is monitored by various legal bodies such as the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. This ensures a consistent compliance to the existing environmental standards.

Now, let’s discuss the effectiveness of the ppp.

Effectiveness of the Polluter Pays Principle

• PPP encourages the industries and people to adopt pollution cleaner resources and reduce pollution.
• The ppp shifts the financial burden towards the polluters from the taxpayers and the public.
• The revenues which are collected from the polluters are used in environmental cleanliness, and some conservation projects.
• There is an advancement in renewable energy and waste reduction techniques have been used by such incentives.

There are some landmark judgments we should discuss about it. So, let’s move forward.

Landmark Judgements

The Indian Judiciary has incorporated the ppp as a part of the environmental law regime through the following judgments:

Indian Council For Enviro-Legal vs. Union Of India & Ors (1996) 

Facts of the case

In India, the ppp was used for the first time in the case of Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996). In this case a PIL was filed for pollution of the environment by some private industries. It is located in Bichhri village in Rajasthan for manufacturing some chemicals like Oleum (concentrated form of Sulphuric acid & H-acid etc., They have not even procured the requisite clearance or consent and they never fitted any plant to treat the highly toxic effluent released by them.

The highly toxic effluents of these industries seeped to the core of the earth and contaminated the water table for humans and for the farmland. It also made it uneconomical for cultivation for production of food crops from the previous soil. Some of the industries had shut down or had ceased production of H-acid. Nevertheless, it left long-term effects of their action, which is sufficient to conclude the case.

In this case, an environmentalist organisation brought into notice the sufferings and woes of the inhabitants of a small village called Bichhri in Udaipur district in Rajasthan. An industrial complex primarily involved in manufacturing chemicals was located in the village, Bichhri. The emission of concentrated sulphuric acid and aluminium sulphate from one of the industries, Hindustan Agro Chemical Limited caused discomfort in the lives of the villagers. 

The effluents from the factory were very difficult to deal with as it was refractory in nature (it means materials which are very high in temperature). Many of the chemicals percolated into the soil polluting the groundwater and aquifers underneath. The polluted water even destroyed the standing crop. As a result, the villagers had to bear the brunt of barren agricultural lands.

Issues of the case

1. To what extent the producing industries of toxic chemicals have implemented environmental protection measures?
2. Whether the defendant would be legally liable for the sum of money necessary to perform such operations to correct the harm?

Judgement of the case

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed both the interim applications with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs and compound interest @ 12% per annum for the failure to pay the remedial amount of Rs. 37.385 crores within 15 years of imposition of remediation costs. In pursuance of the said decree.

The court further observed that it is the duty of court to counterbalance the unjust enrichment (it is a legal maxim which aims to prevent someone from unfairly benefiting at another’s expense) through awarding compound interest and punitive costs full restitution of wronged party and to deter such frivolous and dishonest litigation. One party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. That is a stay which an unscrupulous litigant cannot use to cause an injustice and cannot secure a right for himself by invoking jurisdiction of the court. 

Finally, for the first time the court adopted the ‘ppp’ where cost was recovered from all the big industrial businessmen for polluting the environment and also endangering the lives of the villagers without proper treatment of hazardous slurries of their plants.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the ppp and the said industries were ordered to make good the losses caused by damage and contribute towards the cost of the restoration of the qualities of environment.

The court also ordered such industries to be shut, and noted that in the future it was incumbent on policy makers to plan all chemical industries keeping in mind all environmental factors as this is the idea behind future planning which is to find ways and means to reconcile environmental concern with a relevant need for industries and technology.

To know more about this case, click here.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors (1996)

Facts of the case

This case is popularly known as T.N. Tanneries case. In this landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where the much heard phrase ‘sustainable development’ has been adopted as a balancing concept of the court by this Bench. This case was filed as the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and was directed against the pollution which was coming from the huge amount of discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries of the State of Tamil Nadu. 

Due to the lack of treatment of discharge of the effluents, the entire surface and subsoil water of river Palar had become unacceptable hence no portable water was available to the dwellers in that region.

Issues of the case

1. To what extent principles like the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle which form a part of sustainable development have any role to play in Indian law?
2. To what degree are we willing to sacrifice environment safety to the future economy?
3. Whether tanneries should go on being allowed to function at the cost of life of lakhs of people living there?

Judgement of the case

The ppp is well explained in this  case as ” the costs consequent of pollution must be paid by the polluter”. The absolute liability for harm to the environment goes well beyond indemnifying the victims of pollution together with the cost of recovering the affected environment by enhancing natural balance. Thus, it includes external costs and also direct costs to the extent of a particular person or object in the environment.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after elucidating the cardinal features of sustainable development stated that the precautionary principle and the ppp are the characteristics of sustainable development and have been given effect to as part of the legal system.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held that in view of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) and other statutory provisions contained in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it had “no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the ppp are part of the environmental law of the country. “

The court was disappointed that the Central Government had not promulgated an “authority” under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to do anything necessary for the protection and enhancement of the environment and therefore the work which needs to be done by the above said authority in terms Section 3(3) read with other provisions of the Act is being done by the Supreme Court and the other courts in the country.

M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1996 (The Taj Trapezium Case)

Facts of the case

This case is popularly known as the ‘Taj Mahal case’. This landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is grounded on the principle of sustainable development, where the court made the very first use of the principle called the “precautionary principle”. In this case, due to violation of law relating to environmental pollution a public interest litigation was triggered and there is degradation of the Taj Mahal which is a world heritage site. 

According to the opinion of the expert committees, consumption of coke/coal by industries located within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) were discharging pollution and inflicting harm to the Taj as well as to the residents in the area.

Issues of the case

1. Whether the Taj Trapezium Zone, a specified area of the Taj Mahal, is being substantially injured by pollution threatening the building and its surroundings?
2. Whether alteration of Industrial Fuel Switching from coke/coal by Industries located in the Taj Trapezium Zone to the deteriorating condition of the Taj Mahal & Health of the inhabitants in the area?
3. If the government authorities were doing enough to curb pollution and preserve the great structure for future generations?
4. What legal measures should be recommended to solve the problem of pollution with the aim to protect Taj Mahal in the future?

Judgement of the case

The above mentioned case was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 30 December, 1996. However, there was inordinate delay by the industries to adopt natural gas as industrial fuel as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The court said that excluding a commercial aspect, the Taj Mahal is a cultural industry and thus pollution must be prevented while the growth of this industry must continue and it must be encouraged.

The court had decided to walk the line of sustainable development and adopt that the environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and call attention to damage not yet caused but foreseeable and that it justified use of the “precautionary principle” and fight the sources of pollution impact. Hence it directed that all the industries require the use of natural gas to replace coke/coal for firing, as an industrial fuel for operation.

In TTZ those industries which are in any way in a quandary to get the natural gas connections must cease operations using coke/coal in the TTZ and they might resite delete themselves as per directions of the court. The moving industries of the relocation in the new if industrial estates were to be given the incentives.

Now, moving forward to discuss some of the recent cases.

Recent developments or case studies post-1996

Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.Etc. Etc vs. Union of India and Ors.Etc.Etc. (2013)

Facts of the case

In this case, on 1st August, 1994, Sterlite Industries obtained “No Objection Certificate” from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for setting up a copper smelter plant in Meelavittan village, Tuticorin. On 16th January, 1996, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, granted environmental clearance on subject to certain conditions.Those conditions were laid down by the TNPCB and the Government of India. 

On 22nd May, 1995, the TNPCB granted consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The National Trust for Clean Environment had challenged the environmental clearance and consent order in the Madras High Court,

Issues of the case

1. Whether the writ petition is justified or not?
2. Why did the National Trust for Clean Environment and other parties challenge the environmental clearance and consent orders for Sterlite Industries’ copper smelter plant?
3. What were the reasons behind the Madras High Court’s decision to order the closure of Sterlite Industries’ plant?

Judgement of the case

The judgement given by the judges in this case after analysing the whole facts decided that appellant must pay a compensation of Rs. 100 crores for creating pollution in the environment. The directed amount to be deposited to the Collector of Thoothukudi district. That amount shall be spent on the expenses made for rehabilitating the environment in all facets which were destroyed by the appellant industry with the consultation of Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu and TNPCB and approval of the Secretary. By this the court has also applied the ppp in the judgement. 

The assertion of the judgement was that the appellant industry went on with its production in a continuous manner without the consent of renewal of the TNPCB. With this there was a suppression of material facts and manipulations of facts also. In addition, the industry which also provides employment to 1300 people and the turnover of the industry has a huge amount of revenue for Central as well as the state government in excise duties, VAT etc. 

Lg Polymers India Private Limited vs. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (2020)

Facts of the case

This case is also known as the Vizag Gas Leak. It is one of the fatal and hazardous events that occurred in recent times. In India, Visakhapatnam is a state of Andhra Pradesh. On 7th May 2020, early morning, a group of people complained of dizziness, vomiting, breathlessness and a disagreeable odor in the air. Soon they started dozing and falling down due to sudden shortage of oxygen to the blood as well as brain.

This happened because of styrene monomer vapour leakage from a storage tank in the city of Vizag, Andhra Pradesh. If one goes by reports, 13 people were found dead and thousands hospitalised and the entire place remained a no-go area for over 36 hours. The preliminary investigation carried out showed that it occurred because of the non-availability of workers and the plant not working due to the Covid-19 outbreak and a screw loose was noted.

Issues of the case

1. Did the LG Polymers operate its plant with the required and sufficient environment clearances?
2. Were the safety measures and emergency protocols at the plant adequate?
3. How far is LG Polymers responsible for the said accident and what reparation should be paid to the affected?

Judgement of the case

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) delivered a landmark judgement. When the tragedy occurred then the NGT started the Suo Moto case and prepared ways to find out the case in terms of Section 14 & Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010, which defines the process of addressing the hazardous chemical leakage and the arrangements and compensation should be made from it in the emergency situation.

The NGT directed LG Polymers to pay ₹50 crores interim compensation to be paid to the victim for the styrene gas leak that caused many deaths and other complications. The tribunal doubted the environmental clearance by the company and ordered a special investigation with regard to the environmental clearance and the environmental norms followed in the company. 

Besides, the NGT constituted a separate committee to look into reasons for the said leakage, losses incurred and smart ways to avoid similar mishaps in the future. The tribunal also continued the shut down order of the plant and the physical restriction of the area, that is, entry into the said forbidden area could only be by way of performing safety measures. The Supreme Court of India later affirmed all these orders and at times insisted on compliance with environmental and safety measures to avoid such disasters.

To know more about this case, click here.

Now, we are going to discuss the comparative analysis of different countries. So, let’s move forward.

Comparative analysis of Polluter Pays Principle in other jurisdiction

Country	India	United States	European Union
Legal framework	In India, the ppp is considered as an environmental policy and law. It is reinforced by the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court. There are some policies also framed for the implementation of this principle, such as CPCB, SPCB, NGT.	In the United States, the ppp is implemented through federal laws like CERCLA (Superfund) and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).	In the European Union, it is regulated by the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD).
Enforcement	There are some judicial interventions and NGT plays a crucial role in its enforcement.	EPA enforces the rules and laws for ensuring the polluters pay for damage.	States members are responsible for the enforcement of this principle and with the European Commissions.
Scope and coverage	The main focus of the rules and regulations are on remediation and compensation after the damage has occurred.	The main scope is to clean up the hazardous waste places and liability on the polluters for environmental damage.	It emphasizes both remediation and preventive measures.

Conclusion

Although there is no statutory mandate on the ‘polluter pays principle’. Nevertheless, it takes more effort in complying people to the principle rather than mandating it. The judicial pronouncements on this principle have been clear, crisp and undisputable.

It was realised that industries are also social units and they have legally sanctioned responsibilities and obligations towards the environments they exist in. The old slogan of growth together with the preservation of biodiversity cannot stand well for the other in the 21st century. Although the exploitation of nature in the name of narrow development is no longer acceptable.

The principles include the ‘polluter pays’, ‘precautionary principle’, and the ‘principles of sustainable development’. Principles of sustainable development must in an ideal world be part and parcel of any one of us. Several institutions and universities have adopted tree planting as part of their annual celebration, such as Independence Day, Environment Day, etc. It is thus correct to undertake such steps so as to promote sustainable development. Sustainability is the benchmark of equal harmony for nature and us in the entire world. All these steps should be habits of the millennials.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

On what basis does the Polluter Pays Principle support environmental conservation?

The ppp helps in making polluters bear the cost for polluting and this way they are forced to make necessary changes that will only promote environmentally friendly policies as well as its control technologies.

Do you have an example that best demonstrates implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle?

One of the examples is the carbon tax policy where companies that produce carbon dioxide are charged based on the emission limits to this gas. This tax formula can lead firms and cooperative organisations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as this formula has a specific low tax rate for emission reductions.

On what basis, the Polluter Pays Principle is helpful in Implementing Sustainable Development?

The ppp challenges business establishments to embrace changes in their technologies hence put in place measures to reduce their depletion of resources by the future generations equals to the resources consumed.

What are some of the difficulties that come together with implementing the Polluter Pays Principle?

Some of the problems relate to the assessment of pollutant concentration, determination of tax rate/s or penalties, enforcement of laws and regulations, and possible effects of polluting industries and consumers.

How does the Polluter Pays Principle impact consumers?

It affects consumers who may end up paying more for the goods and services since the cost of pollution control will be absorbed by the manufacturer. But this also convinces the consumers to go with more environmentally friendly products.

Is the Polluter Pays Principle practised all over the world?

The ppp is very well known and used in many countries and its application is very different depending on the policies, regulations and institutional system of each country.

What are the roles of governments in the Polluter Pays Principle?

The ppp is created, regulated and implemented by governments; the latter determine rules on pollution emission levels, taxes or penalties and monitor their adherence.

What measures can people put in place to fund the Polluter Pays Principle? 

Interventions that the individuals can undertake in order to support the ppp include; encouraging good environmental legislation, practicing good environmental conduct, and sourcing our products from organizations that are friendly to the environment.

References

• https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD(92)81/En/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiNhtSaubmJAxWZZvUHHYQvIxo4ChAWegQIGhAB&usg=AOvVaw3pLc1Lxovw3yd1MChEU6mF
• https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://earth.org/explainer-what-is-the-polluter-pays-principle-and-how-can-it-be-used-in-climate-policy/&ved=2ahUKEwiNhtSaubmJAxWZZvUHHYQvIxo4ChAWegQIIxAB&usg=AOvVaw2kNGXn1EszVAGfNOG15OlP
• Book of Environmental Law, by DR. Paramjit S. Jaswal, Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, and Vibhuti Jaswal.
• Book of Environmental Law in India, by P Leelakrishnan.

POST-PRODUCTION SEO OPTIMISATION GUIDELINES ( NOT TO BE EDITED BY ANY FREELANCER)

 Clarity and Coherence

Clarity:

– Simplify Complex Sentences: Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making them hard to follow. For example, the sentence starting with “Take for instance the incident of the Bhopal Gas Leak…” can be broken down for better understanding.

  – Instruction: Break complex sentences into shorter, clearer ones to improve readability.

– Define Technical Terms: Terms like “methyl isocyanate” and “refractory in nature” may not be familiar to all readers.

  – Instruction: Provide brief explanations or definitions for technical terms to ensure all readers can follow along.

Coherence:

– Logical Flow of Ideas: The article sometimes jumps between topics without clear transitions, such as moving from the historical background to specific court cases abruptly.

  – Instruction: Use transitional phrases to guide the reader smoothly from one section to the next.

– Consistent Use of Tenses: There is inconsistency in verb tenses throughout the article.

  – Instruction: Maintain a consistent tense (preferably present tense) to ensure coherence.

—

 Grammar and Style

Grammar:

– Correct Grammatical Errors: There are several grammatical mistakes, such as subject-verb agreement issues and improper use of articles.

  – Instruction: Proofread the article carefully to correct errors.

– Punctuation and Spelling: Missing commas and spelling mistakes are present (e.g., “let alone the immediate impact of the leakage” should be “Let alone the immediate impact of the leakage”).

  – Instruction: Review punctuation usage and correct spelling errors to enhance professionalism.

Style:

– Adopt an Engaging, Conversational Tone: The current tone is formal and academic.

  – Instruction: Rewrite sentences to be more conversational and relatable. For example, instead of “Therefore, it’s a no brainer for a citizen to be aware of the principles of environmental law,” you could say, “It’s essential for everyone to understand environmental laws.”

– Vary Paragraph Lengths: Most paragraphs are long and dense.

  – Instruction: Mix short and long paragraphs to create a dynamic reading experience.

– Use Creative Formatting: The article lacks bullet points, numbered lists, or emphasis where appropriate.

  – Instruction: Incorporate bullet points or numbered lists for enumerations and bold or italic text to highlight key concepts.

—

 Structure and Organization

Structure:

– Enhance the Introduction: The introduction should hook the reader and clearly state what the article will cover.

  – Instruction: Revise the introduction to be more engaging, perhaps by starting with a compelling fact or question about environmental pollution in India.

– Strengthen the Conclusion: The conclusion introduces new ideas, such as the COVID-19 lockdown, which were not discussed earlier.

  – Instruction: Summarize the main points and reinforce the importance of the polluter pays principle without introducing new topics.

Organization:

– Use Clear Headings and Subheadings: Some sections lack headings, making it hard to follow the organization.

  – Instruction: Add informative headings and subheadings for each major section to guide the reader.

– Paragraph Unity: Ensure each paragraph contains a single main idea with a clear topic sentence.

  – Instruction: Review each paragraph to confirm it centers around one idea and begins with a topic sentence.

—

 Relevance and Audience Engagement

Relevance:

– Align with Audience Needs: Since the publication aims to sell courses to students and professionals seeking career advancement, the article should highlight skills or knowledge they can gain.

  – Instruction: Emphasize how understanding the polluter pays principle can benefit their careers in law, environmental policy, or corporate social responsibility.

Engagement:

– Make It Interesting and Compelling: The article is informative but lacks elements that captivate the reader.

  – Instruction: Include real-life examples, anecdotes, or questions that encourage readers to think critically about the topic.

—

 Tone and Voice

Tone:

– Ensure Appropriateness: The tone should be friendly and accessible, suitable for students and professionals.

  – Instruction: Adjust the tone to be less formal and more inviting, using inclusive language like “we” and “us.”

Voice:

– Maintain Consistency: The article sometimes shifts from an academic voice to a more casual one.

  – Instruction: Keep a consistent voice throughout, preferably one that is knowledgeable yet approachable.

—

 Content Completeness

Completeness:

– Address Missing Subtopics: The article misses opportunities to discuss:

  – The impact of the polluter pays principle on businesses and industries in India.

  – The role of government policies in enforcing this principle.

  – Recent developments or case studies post-1996.

  – Instruction: Include these subtopics to provide a comprehensive view.

Support:

– Provide Evidence and Data: Many claims lack supporting data or citations.

  – Instruction: Back up statements with statistics, reports, or references to credible sources.

—

 Formatting and Presentation

Formatting:

– Adhere to Guidelines: The article does not consistently use headings or subheadings, and some paragraphs are not properly aligned.

  – Instruction: Format the article according to our guidelines, using appropriate heading levels and ensuring proper alignment.

Presentation:

– Utilize Visuals Effectively: There are no visuals included.

  – Instruction: Add tables summarizing landmark cases.

—

 Additional Instructions

– Update References: Some references are outdated or incomplete.

  – Instruction: Provide current references, especially any developments to ensure the article is up-to-date.

– Remove Redundancies: Certain points are repeated multiple times.

  – Instruction: Eliminate repetitive content to keep the article concise.

– Proofread for Flow: Read the article aloud to catch awkward phrasing or run-on sentences.

  – Instruction: Smooth out sentences to enhance the natural flow of the text.

• Are primary/secondary keywords added to the title, meta description, and subheadings properly?
• Is the primary keyword used in the first 100 words of the article? 
• Are the secondary keywords used at least once in the article? (if they are provided)
• Is the title clear, benefits-oriented, and “scroll-stopping”?
• At least five internal outlinks added? 
• At least two external outlinks added? 
• Title/meta description within the character and pixel limits?
• Is the structure exhaustive?
• Is the topic covered in depth? Are all possible subtopics covered?
• Does the article provide additional value than that in the existing RANKING articles on Google?
• Is the article free of grammatical/spelling mistakes?
• Is the article free of plagiarism? 
• Does the article seem to be human-written and free of AI? 
• Is the readability high? (Short paragraphs, short sentences, simple language, and structuring)