NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPURSummer Session(July-November 2015)

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAWPrinciple of Absolute Liability: Judicial Trend and Comparative Analysis

Submitted To: Submitted By:Prof. (Dr.) I.P. MasseyGaurav Kumar SinghMr. Anand Kumar SinghSemester 1, Roll-751Faculty (Law)LL.M (Cyber Law)

SUBMITTED ON September 10, 2015

AcknowledgmentI sincerely thank Prof. (Dr.) I.P. Massey and Mr. Anand Kumar Singh for allowing me to work on an area of my interest. Their invaluable assistance and patience to stand us all in a class of undisciplined learners is admirable. I am highly thankful to them for their infallible help and support. I am highly indebted to the staff of the NLUJ library for their kind consideration in the same regard. And last but not the least I would take the opportunity to thank my parents, friends and well wishers without whose support and criticism this project of mine would not have gathered enough momentum. This is as much theirs.-Gaurav Kumar Singh

ContentsIntroductionResearch Objectives and QuestionsM.C. Mehta v Union of IndiaBhopal Gas Tragedy Case Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of IndiaIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of IndiaIs the principle of Absolute liability applicable only for Environmental Wrongs?Role of Article 12 and Absolute LiabilityRule of Absolute Liability in USAConclusionBibliography

IntroductionLaws must change with time in a progressive society. In this project we shall trace the history of the principle of Absolute Liability focussing on the famous Sri Ram Food Case and later deal with comparative analysis of the same with other principles and jurisdictions. The project shall further deal as to why the Indian Supreme Court did not apply the principle of strict liability and developed ingenious jurisprudence on the cases of liability.The principle of absolute liability was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India[footnoteRef:2], popularly known as oleum gas leak case. This case is one of the most intriguing parts of the Indian compensatory jurisprudence ever developed. It commenced an entire new chapter in Indias environmental law history, and brought about a level of maturity in the Indian judiciary never seen before. The concept so developed can be deemed as a stricter version of the liability laid down by the English Court in the case of Rylands v Fletcher[footnoteRef:3]. Blackburn, J. in the case stated: [2: AIR 1987 SC 1086] [3: (1868) LR 3 HL 330]

That the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property."[footnoteRef:4] [4: Ibid]

The House of Lords, however, added a rider to the above statement, viz., that the user by the defendant should be a "non-natural" user to attract the rule. In other words, if the user by the defendant is a natural user of the land, he would not be liable for damages. Thus, the twin tests - apart from the proof of damage to the plaintiff by the act/negligence of the defendants - which must be satisfied to attract this rule are "foreseability" and "non-natural" user of the land.The principle of strict liability comes down with exceptions unlike in case of absolute liability. Further, the pre-requirements essential for establishing a liability under the principle of strict liability viz., the non-natural use of land, use of a dangerous thing, and the element of escape provided substantial loopholes to the enterprises to escape liability under the Rylands v. Fletcher[footnoteRef:5] rule and was mentioned by the Supreme Court while pondering upon the requisite jurisprudential aspect. [5: Ibid.]

Research Objectives and Questions1. To trace the historical background and analyze the concept of Absolute Liability. What is the concept of strict and absolute liability? What is the legal difference between strict and absolute liability? Is there any statutory backing for the same? Whether absolute liability can be seen as a stricter version of strict liability? If yes, how?2. To trace Indian judicial framework establishing the principle of absolute liability. Whether Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in establishing the principle of absolute liability? Whether Supreme Court has differed in its judgment in applying the principle of absolute liability in different cases? Whether the notion of absolute liability is a part of obiter of the judgment? Cite relevant case explanations. Whether the Bhopal Gas Tragedy is in conformity of the rule laid down in Sri Ram Food & Fertilizer case? If no, explain the difference in the modus operandi of the court in the two cases.3. To critically analyze the application domain of absolute liability principle. Whether it is necessary for an entity to come under the purview of Article 12 to attract absolute liability? Whether breach of fundamental right is an essential attribute for attracting the principle of absolute liability? Whether absolute liability principle is exclusive for environmental damages resulting in breach of fundamental rights? If yes, critically evaluate the wisdom behind it.4. To critically compare American and Indian approach for absolute liability principle. Whether both legal systems have clearly demarcated the difference between strict and absolute liability? Whether state action doctrine relates with American jurisprudence on absolute liability? Whether absolute liability mandates exemplary damages in both legal systems? If yes, is there any criticism over its economic impact?M.C. Mehta v Union of India[footnoteRef:6] [6: Supra 1.]

Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of oleum gas on 4th and 6th December 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same. The action was brought through a writ petition under article 32 (earlier for grant of an order of Mandamus and later for compensation) of the Indian Constitution by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court had in mind that within the period of an year, this was the second case of large-scale leakage of a deadly gas in India, as an year earlier due to the leakage of MIC gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal more than 3000 people had died and thousands of others were subjected to various other kinds of diseases. If the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher[footnoteRef:7] was applied to such situations, then those who had established hazardous and inherently dangerous industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher[footnoteRef:8]. For instance, when the escape of the substance causing damage was due to the act of a stranger, say due to sabotage, there was no liability under the rule. [7: Supra 2.] [8: Ibid.]

Legal issues involved in the case were:Legal Issues: 1. What is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 since the application for compensation are sought to be maintained under Article?2. Whether Article 21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in industry vital to public interest and with potential to affect the life and health of the people?3. What is the measure of the liability of an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or is injured?The first issue which is concerned with the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, Bhagwati J., in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India[footnoteRef:9], held that the scope and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution of India does not only confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose the court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to make and adopt new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights. The second question concerning with the availability of Article 21, the Honourable Court said that they do not propose to decide any definite statement at this stage as it needs detailed consideration. For the third issue, which was concerned with the compensation, the court decided to direct Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the cases of all those who claim to have been suffered by the oleum gas and file actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against Shriram and the Delhi Administration is directed to provide the necessary funds to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board for the purpose of filing and prosecuting such actions. [9: 1984 AIR(SC) 802]

The court before deciding the third issue laid down the concept of absolute liability and also pointed out that the duty owed by such an enterprise to the society is absolute and non-delegable and that the enterprise cannot escape liability by showing that it had taken all reasonable care and there was no negligence on its part. The court rejected incorporation of the rule of strict liability in this case and held that:We do not feel inhibited by this rule, which was evolved in the context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in this country. As new situations arise, the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constrained by reference to the law as it prevails in England, or for that matter in any other foreign legal order. We, in India, cannot hold our hands back and I venture to evolve a new principle of liability which English Courts have not done. And further reasoned that: If an enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its over-heads; and The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or danger and to provide warning against potential hazards.On the point of compensation the court in this case held that the larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.Bhopal Gas Tragedy CaseCase 1: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India[footnoteRef:10] [10: AIR 1990 SC 273]

The peculiar problem regarding the claim of compensation was involved because of such a large number of victims, most of those belonging to the lower economic strata. On behalf of the victims, a large number of cases were filed in Bhopal, and also in USA against the UCC. The Indian government filed an affidavit in the US court citing immaturity and inefficiency of the Indian judiciary and said that it might take years to come to final conclusion for a case of this magnitude.[footnoteRef:11] [11: S.P.Sathe, Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, 302 (7th Ed. 2010)]

The case in USA was rejected on the ground of forum non conveniens i.e. the suit can be more conveniently tried in India as apart from many other factors, India was the place of catastrophe, and the plant personnel, victims, witnesses, documentary and all related witnesses were located there.After the dismissal of the suit in USA, the UOI filed a suit in the District Court of Bhopal. The lower court ordered UCC to pay an interim relief of Rs. 350 crore to the gas victims. On a civil revision petition file by the UCC in the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the order of the Bhopal District Court, the appellate court reduced the quantum of interim compensation payable from Rs. 350 crore to Rs. 250 crore. At this time UCC was involved in discussions with the government regarding a direct settlement which was stayed by the court. It was here that the court applied the rule of absolute liability and ordered a compensation package of Rs. 750 crore but the court shied away from awarding exemplary damages and the decision was subject to criticism over this point.Case 2: Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India[footnoteRef:12] [12: AIR 1990 SC 1480]

There was wide resentment over the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act (1985) passed by the Govt. of India, which entitled it to represent the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy en masse. According to section 3 of the Act, the Government of India was empowered to represent, and act in place of every person who made a claim, or is entitled to make, a claim arising out of, or connected with, the Bhopal gas leak disaster and as a result all suits filed by the victims in America and India were superseded and consolidated in the action filed by the Union of India. According to the Act, all criminal proceedings were quashed against the UCC and under the doctrine of Parens Patriae the Indian government was allowed to take up the action on behalf of the victims. In this case, the petitioner challenged the validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act (1985) in the Supreme Court.The petitioner contended that 1. The Government was not entitled to represent the victims before the Court and hence the settlement was illegal; 2. The settlement was also not valid because the views of the victims had not been taken before deciding on the final terms of the settlement.With regard to the above-mentioned issues, the Supreme Court said that the Government of India had not violated any law and any right of the victims by representing them. It was said that in the background of the preamble to the Constitution and the mandate of the Directive Principles of State Policy, it was possible to authorize the Central Government to take over the claims of the victims of the gas leak to fight against the multi-national corporation in respect of the claims. This was based on the concept of the maxim salus populi suprema lex regard for public welfare is the highest law. Regarding the views of victims as to the terms of the settlement, the Supreme said that the purpose of the 1985 Act and principles of natural justice lead to the interpretation of Section 4 of the Act, that in case of a proposed or contemplated settlement, notice should be given to the victims or their legal dependants whose rights are to be affected to ascertain their views. This, however, does not mean that the consent of all the victims is required for the settlement. The Government of India, acting as the representative of the victims can place the views of the victims before the Court; in such a manner as it consider necessary before a settlement is entered into. Further, it was stated by the Court that the victims had the right to approach the court at any stage if, it was felt by the victims that their rights were being deprived of in the action against Union Carbide Corporation.It is important to note in this regard that the Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded to the victims was justified and set aside the orders quashing criminal prosecutions. This stand taken by the Supreme Court was contrary to the stand expressed by the same Court in the matter of MC Mehta v. Union of India[footnoteRef:13] where it had been said that the damages payable would be fixed in proportion to the economic capacity of the defendant corporation. [13: Supra 1.]

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India[footnoteRef:14] [14: AIR 1996 SC 1446]

In this case chemical industries were discharging sludge which was a contaminant consisting of H acid (manufacturing is banned in many countries) and Oleum substitutes in village Bicchri in Udaipur resulting in massive environmental degradation and death is some cases due to water contamination. A writ petition concerning the above stated matter was file before the Supreme Court under Article 32 by way of social action litigation on behalf of the villagers affected by the pollution resulting in invasion on their right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to recover the costs of the remedial measures from the private companies. The factories, plants, machinery, and all other immovable assets of the respondent companies were ordered to be attached and the amount so determined and recovered was ordered to be utilized by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (M.E.F.) for carrying out all remedial measures to restore soil, water sources and the environment in general of the affected area to its former condition. On account of their continuous, persistent, and insolent violations of law, the respondent industries were characterized by the SC as rogue industries, industries which had heaped loads of untold miseries upon poor and unsuspecting villagers. In this case, the Supreme Court also explicitly recognized the principle of polluter pays. There basically exist three principles that have been identified while dealing with rogue industries. So the principle of absolute liability was applied in the case in full flow and it was further held that the principle of absolute liability is a part of ration of the Sri Ram Food & Fertilizer case[footnoteRef:15] and is not a part of obiter; hence it is now cleared to be followed by the courts as precedent. [15: Supra 1.]

Is the principle of Absolute liability applicable only for Environmental Wrongs?Klaus Mittelbachert v East India Hotels Ltd.[footnoteRef:16] [16: AIR 1997 Delhi 201]

In this case a German co-pilot, who stayed in New Delhi in Hotel Oberoi Inter-Continental, five-star hotel, was badly injured when he dived in the hotel swimming pool due to defective design of the swimming pool and insufficient amount of water in it. The injuries resulted in his paralysis and ultimate death after 13 years of the accident. The court arrived at the finding that the design of the swimming pool was defective; the conclusion which necessarily emerges is that the swimming pool of the defendant's hotel was a trap. It was a `hazardous premises' in the sense in which the term is used in the law of torts. The liability of the defendants for adverse consequences flowing from the use of the swimming pool- a hazardous premise - would be absolute. It was held that a five-star hotel charging high or fancy prices from its guests owes a high duty of care to its guests. A latent defect in its structure or service attracts absolute liability. The high price tag hanging on its service pack attracts and casts an obligation to pay exemplary damages, if an occasion may arise for the purposes. Thus we see that the application of the rule is not limited to environmental matters. It can also be applied elsewhere when there is a danger to a persons health and safety and the defendant is totally at fault.Role of Article 12 and Absolute LiabilityIn Oleum Gas Leak case a lot of discussion in the judgment was on the fact that whether Sri Ram Food Industries would come under the purview of Article 12 under the term local and other authorities. It was further decided by the court that they would not submerge themselves in this discussion and formulated the principle of absolute liability but if we critically analyze the judgment then we see the pattern as to how at first the locus standi was made loose and afterwards the principle of deep and pervasive control by the government was factored in; an avid reading to the judgment suggests inclination of that bench to rule the said industry under Article 12 in spite of arguments such as intention of legislature and economic impact.But in the Sri Ram Food case which has been made a settled law again via judicial journey over the course of time the principle of absolute liability talks about non-delegable duty and fixates liability ousting the concept of Article 12; hence we can come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for the enterprise to be state for the purposes under article 12 for fixating liability.Rule of Absolute Liability in USAIn America the Rylands v. Fletcher[footnoteRef:17] rule was adopted as soon as the case was dealt with in England. The first American state to apply the Rylands doctrine was Massachusetts. However, it is interesting to note that the American Courts have always been prone to use the terms strict liability and absolute liability rather interchangeably. The clear line of distinction that was created by Bhagwati CJ while evolving the rule of absolute liability does not exist in the case of American jurisprudence. Both Massachusetts and Minnesota while dealing with cases where the rule essentially to be applied was strict liability, have instead used the term absolute liability in affixing liability on people where the escape of thing due to the non-natural use of land caused damage. [17: (1868) LR 3 HL 330]

Many states have accepted the strict liability rule as a doctrine applicable principally to cases where there is escape and consequential damage caused by water. However, some states have made categorical exceptions and explanations to the rule, perhaps because the imposition of liability without the proof of fault is a very harsh remedy according to jurisprudential aspect. Further, a careful analysis of the judgments would lead to the conclusion that courts have at the same time paradoxically accepted and rejected Rylands. However, some basic changes were made to the application of the rule over a period of time to incorporate the changing economic conditions. The amendments were brought out in the Restatement of Torts (First) and (Second)[footnoteRef:18]. Accordingly, section 519 of the Restatement (Second) states that: [18: http://law.wustl.edu/journal/53/200_.pdf]

1. One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.2. This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.Section 520 of the Restatement (Second) provides[footnoteRef:19]: [19: ibid.]

In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered:1. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;2. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;3. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;4. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and6. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.We can see that via above amendments the American legal system has expanded the scope on no-fault liability in cases of exceptionally dangerous activity. Further, many states went to the extent of codifying the principle of absolute liability. Louisiana, with its unique approach towards law amongst other states can be said to have most far-reaching codified liability scheme. Article 667 of the Louisiana Civil Code[footnoteRef:20] establishes the statutory basis of the Rylands principle as: [20: http://law.wustl.edu/journal/53/200_.pdf]

Although a proprietor may do with his estate whatever he pleases, still he cannot make any work on it, which may deprive his neighbor of the liberty of enjoying his own, or which may be the cause of any damage to him. It is to be noted that while the Louisiana code does not explicitly establish absolute liability, the Louisiana courts have interpreted it that way. The best-known example of statutory absolute liability for property damages may be said to be the clean-up provisions in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Other examples include Utahs Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act, which establishes absolute liability for investigation and the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act of 1973[footnoteRef:21], which establishes absolute liability for the discharge of pollution into state waters. [21: Ibid.]

The American courts have largely followed a similar line of thought as the Indian Courts and have brought environment pollution under the ambit of strict (or absolute) liability. The disposals of hazardous and toxic wastes from industries, which are aware of the hazardous and inherently dangerous nature of the contaminants, have been held to be liable under the rule of strict or absolute liability. However, instead of establishing a new head of torts like the Indian courts, the American legal framework has decided to address the issue by evolving the principle established by Rylands v. Fletcher[footnoteRef:22] itself, there being no clear distinction between the use of the terms absolute and strict liability. [22: (1868) LR 3 HL 330]

Therefore, we see that although the name remains the same, the principle has been evolved from the principle affixing liability in the case of escape of water from a reservoir to one that is the cornerstone for environment protection laws, in India as well as in America. The general underlying principles remain the same the principle of polluter pays, rogue industries (Enviro legal; case) etc., principles that are so very essential in maintaining the sanctity of the environment in post-modern industrialized era. ConclusionThe rule of absolute liability has become a messiah for the society, in the sense that it is one rule that the society can always bank on for keeping establishments producing hazardous and inherently dangerous products at bay. The rule of absolute liability provides an effective weapon to the Indian Courts to effectively combat environmental pollution. The humane aspect of the application of the rule of course, stands out. The untold misery suffered by the people of Delhi, Bhopal, and many other cities and towns around the country; as exemplified in the cases discussed ; makes the existence of such a rule all the more important. While the courts in America have not made any specific rule such as the one in India until recently, they have evolved their own existing principle of strict/absolute liability to suit their needs. While the nomenclature is still a bit dubious with the interchangeable use of the words strict and absolute; the rule has been able; to a very large extent; to help society counter environmental pollution. One aspect we can conclude that the principle is having some nexus with the violation of fundamental right to clean environment extended under Article 21 and exemplary penalty can be levied against corporations and industries with the necessity of bringing them under the purview of Article 12 as compared to earlier stance of the court to enforce violation of fundamental rights only against public bodies which are included under the term local and other authorities under the Indian Constitution. Therefore, for the application of principle of absolute liability in cases of environmental harm the settled law is that it is the constitutional and statutory provisions to protect a persons right to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment and the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty which includes right to fresh air.[footnoteRef:23] [23: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India, AIR1996SC2715]

Arguments have been put forth in courts that in commonwealth nations the principle of absolute liability has not been well founded and therefore rule of strict liability must be the criteria in such cases and the courts have held that this argument is untenable in light of the decision by the court in oleum gas leak case. There have been debates over the intensity of punishment in cases of absolute liability i.e. exemplary damages may damage the economic set up of the concerned enterprise which may lead to loss of employment. This was on the mind of the judges when Sri Ram case was heard and they had directed the company to absorb all the employees while relocation and when some of the employees could not be absorbed they were retrenched. The court in its judgment pointed the fact that one cannot shut down industries altogether just for the reason they are located in dense population areas as it would hamper the economic growth of the nation and it is something the nation must strive for. Analysis of the implications of Supreme Courts innovations for environmental jurisprudence reveals that the application of creative methods to resolve disputes and implement Court orders is certainly a deviation from the usual adjudicatory function of the Court. While the procedural innovations have widened the scope for justice through recognition of citizens right to healthy environment, entertaining petitions on behalf of affected people and inanimate objects and creative thinking of judges to arrive at a decision by making spot visit, substantive innovations have redefined the role of Court in the decision-making process through application of environmental principles and expanding the scope of environmental jurisprudence in particular. However, in reminding other organs about their Constitutional duties and enforcing fundamental right of citizens, the Supreme Court has at times, crossed its boundaries and has interfered in the very basic affairs of environmental management and such cases require constant vigil over the scenario otherwise it might disrupt the entire framework of development.The expansive interpretation of Article 21 and the liberal interpretation of Article 32 and 226 are the remarkable development in the human rights to clean and wholesome environment in India. The Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been used by judiciary to implement the principles of sustainable development, protecting the right to clean air, water and environment; right to livelihood etc. the analysis of the case laws shows that the judiciary has widened the scope of article 21 and implemented an international norm in a domestic law. Article 48 A and 51 A (g) have been interpreted to substantiate this development.In the light many hurdles which are inhibiting the natural growth of tort law in India, the recent development in combining tort law with the constitutional right to personal life and liberty and its remedy through compensation is a good step, maybe on the verge of over-reach in case of exemplary damages in absolute liability.

BibliographyBooks: S.P.Sathe, Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, 302 (7th Ed. 2010) RatanLal & DhirajLal, Law of Torts, (G. P. Singh, Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, 2002).

Cases: Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 MC Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 273 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446Websites: www.manupatra.com

17 | Page