Nuisance and Environment Law :
Nuisance and environmental law therefore share a same hand as far as the question of compensatory damages are concerned. But rarely in ecological tort actions are these issues quite so clear and pellucid. The impacted are determines the problem, the scope of solution, the immediate response, so on ad so forth. Therefore, the act of nuisance is punishable and gravely s when the question of law comes.
Nuisance is not of one type. It has sub components out of which we are basically understood with following :
Public nuisance by definition is a violation of right in rem while the other one is violation of right in personem. Therefore, even if the court wants to take cognizance of a matter concerning nuisance, it must be noted that public nuisance is far graver than the private nuisance. Public nuisance is the reason why the environmental problems arose and they are being dealt with seriously by the courts. In case of private nuisance, the same can constitute a crime against the environment.. For the nature of the wrongs that arise in case of the environment and related factors, tort law remains the most effcacious method for the resolution of the same. It involves simple and straight solution of the problems with mere provisions of damages which is in accordance with the nature of the remedy that is required to be infused into the system without penalising.
This nuisance is said to have taken place when due to acts of one person, the other person and the world in general is so much so affected that the environment is polluted and that the lives of many living in the same environment are endangered or at least put in jeopardy. The courts have laid down that if persons laid salt pans in tank which belonged to the government and thereby to the public in general, it is committing a wrong to the public in general and it amounts to nuisance.
Public Resources :
Any public resource which is used by the public in general and doesn’t belong to any particular person is called a public resource and no person is allowed to use or contaminate the resource as if he or she is the sole owner. The government is also a trustee of such property and has no absolute right over them. The Supreme Court of India has laid down in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution case) that the river ganga is a public resource and doesn’t belong to any person in particular. Therefore, the pollution of the same is public nuisance and not private nuisance. Moreover, this pollution is widespread and indiscriminate in effect. Since it affects the community at large, anyone can move the court through PIL and seek directions on the said issue. However, in certain cases, the tort remedy is not effective as the solution is vague, the effects are long drawn. They aren’t able to adequately compensate the victims in the manner and the method that they should have done. Substance released into the land of others or so are those things such as explained in the Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India such resolutions have to be ade and achieved through the tort action that arises.
Negligence and Environment law :
Negligence is also one of the specific torts which helps in preventing the environmental pollution. Whenever a person fails to exercise some reasonable which he is expected to take and work is called negligence. When negligence occurs, the same is to be taken as a tort and thereby punished in the same manner as other torts are resorted to.
The cause and effect relationship in the case of the negligence is the utmost important factor which has to be taken into consideration to fix liability for the compensation of torts.The other theory commonly underlying environmental tort actions, negligence, is broader in scope, and also permits traditional tort damages as a remedy. Because negligence requires the breach of a duty of care and a duty may be created where a party creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another,104 the law of negligence can potentially reach those environmental harms that do not implicate a possessory interest in the use and enjoyment of land. A negligence claim may be brought by essentially any party directly injured by another’s failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
NEGLIGENCE IS A TRADITIONAL TORT WHICH ALSO PROVIDES FOR REMEDY FROM the offender in a manner that full compensation is obtained. Because negligence requires the breach of a duty of care and a duty may be created where a party creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another, the law of negligence can potentially reach those environmental harms that do not implicate a possessory interest in the use and enjoyment of land. A negligence claim may be brought by essentially any party directly injured by another’s failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in which it should have been awarded.
The courts have been also readily accepting of this notion in the manner that sets the precedent to the correct level. Mukesh Textile Mills V. HR Sastry the court had held that the common law action for negligence can be used to prevent any activity causing environmental degradation. A keen and certain characteristic of the negligence is that it can be very clearly inferred that the act of whom has caused the act and therefore, fixing the responsibility is ver easy and at the same time makes the fixing procedure simple. Therefore, it is pellucid that, negligence, nuisance, and other common law tort actions function most effectively to remedy environmental harm.
STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
The doctrine of strict liability as well as absolute liability have been devised so as to without entangling into procedural aspects, the liability can be fixed and imperatively, in a manner where the Polluter Pays Principle also coincides. Here the polluter has to pay without ascertaining as to the reasonable care and precaution was taken or not.
In the illustrious Rylands v Fletcher. The strict liability had laid down that even without his own fault. This has been derived for the reason that the environmental pollution because of the reason of the gas and other hazardous substances that escape the land of the owner but get released into the land of the other, the owner has to pay the damages for the reason that everything was under his ownership, despite he had taken reasonable care and caution is immaterial.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case)
Principle of Absolute liability was laid down in this case whereby the court of India laid down that it was not imperative to follow the test laid down in Britain and new test could be laid down in India itself. According to Bhagwati, J. Social cost has also to be borne by the owner and therefore, without considering any reasonable care was taken or not, the compensation has to be paid. Moreover, the complete and full responsibinity of the accident has to be borne by the owner on whose premise the mischief has occurred.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
ASPECT OF CRIME AND ENVIRONMENT
The aspect of crime and environment have been now nearly interconnected because the deterrent effect and sense has to be incorporated into the people for violating the environment. Indian Penal Code deals with the aspects of crime that are related to the humans and therefore, the crimes relating to sanitation and other such which are result of overlap of environment and Penal laws are enacted into the Legal and crime system of the country.
Thus an act which tends or causes interference with the health, safety, comfort, convenience of the public at large will be considered as public nuisance and therefore shall be punishable. It covers all types of pollution. Water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution.
Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code deals with offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. While Section 268 defines Public Nuisance, there are two specific sections dealing with the fouling of water (Section 277) and making the atmosphere noxious to health (section 278) which could be used against perpetrators of water and air pollution. Section 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code read as follows:
277. Fouling water of public spring or reservoir. Whoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir, so as to render it less fir for the purpose for which it ordinarily used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
278. Making atmosphere noxious to health. Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.
Therefore, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the provisions where the health and public sanitation has been catered to. Public reservoir and atmospheric and infusing toxicity into the same is also punishable offence and therefore not accepted in the society.
For instance, the provision relating to fouling of water. The wording requires proof of the voluntary corruption or fouling of water, that the water must be of public spring or a reservoir and that the water must have been rendered less fit for the purpose for which it was ordinarily used. Such wording not only creates a burden for the prosecution to prove, but also provide the accused enough grounds to argue his way out. The above provisions did not liberate the criminal justice process from the difficulties of the common law demanding elaborate evidence for sundry matters as well as technical interpretations of obvious things and events.