Environmental Remedies Under Law Of Torts

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIES UNDER LAW OF TORTS:

India has been a plethora of legislation covering various aspects of the environment to ensure its conservation. However, due to loopholes in the laws or perhaps, the slack of the authorities imposing the laws, this legislation has merely remained a compendium of powerless phrases that have lost their power during the course of time. The SC has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty as under Article 21 to mean a right to have pollution free environment. However, Indian Environmental Law has seen considerable development in the last two decades, with the constitutional courts laying down the basic principles on which the environmental justice system stands. The law of torts in India, which remained unmodified, followed the English law in almost all aspects in is field. It is notable that common law, originally introduced into India by the British, continues to apply here by virtue of Article 372(1)6 of the Indian Constitution unless it has been modified or changed by peculiar conditions that prevailed in India required this. The remedies of modern environmental torts have their roots in these common law principles of nuisance, negligence, strict liability and trespass and other remedies for tort.

Nuisance:

It means anything which annoys hurts or that which is offensive. Nuisance may be public or private in nature. Hence acts interfering with the comfort, health or safety are covered under nuisance. The interference may be due to smell, noise, fumes, gas, heat, smoke, germs, vibrations etc. In the private nuisance the basis of an action under nuisance in unreasonable and unnecessary inconvenience caused by the use of defendant’s land. The tort law of nuisance as a remedy with reference to environmental damages suffers from several limitations. First reasonableness of defendant’s conduct is a question mark or otherwise unreasonableness on the defendant’s conduct is very difficult to prove and mostly weighed against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff. In pollution related cases it is very difficult for the plaintiff to establish casual link between the pollutant and the injury as the subject required more of technical evidence. Again material harm attributable to the unreasonable conduct of the defendant is very difficult to prove especially in the pollution related cases.

Negligence:

Negligence is another specific tort n which a common law action to prevent environmental pollution can be instituted. When there is a duty to take care and the same is not taken, which results in some harm to another person, it is amounted to negligence. In the action of negligence the result is some kind of a loss, inconvenience or annoyance to another. The plaintiff must show-

-The defendant was under a duty to take reasonable cre to avoid the damage complained

-breach of the duty

- The consequential damage which must have been factually caused by breach of duty and must be reasonable foreseeable as a consequence of the breach. The problem with cases of negligence is, the difficulty in establishing casual connection between the negligent act of one and injury to other. It is also very difficult and problematic to prove if the effect of the injury remains latent for a long period.

Trespass:

It means an intentional invasion of the interests of the plaintiff over property in his exclusive possession. Invasion may be direct or through some tangible object. Two things are necessary to prove for constituting the tort of trespass. In the environment related problems tort of trespass.

1.Intentional interference

2.Such interference must be direct rather than consequential. In the environment related problems tort of trespass constitute a deliberate placement of waste in such circumstances as it will be related cases the tort of trespass in very rarely invoked due to the fact

3.Difficult t indentify the source

4.High cost of litigation

Strict Liability:

The person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land 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. The liability under this rule is strict and it is not the defense that the thongs escape without fault on the part of the defendant and particularly this aspect of the doctrine has significant relevance in the matters related to environmental pollution. It is related to variety of things like fire, gas, explosions, electricity, oil, noxious, fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation etc. This rule is equally applies to the injuries caused to person and property.

Previous Next Back