A tort is an act or omission that constitutes a civil wrong for which a court can hold someone accountable that results in injury to another person. The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
The main objective of
torts is to hold accountable to those persons who are liable for causing harm
or injury and make them compensate for their act. The compensation can be
anything like monetary compensation, injunction or restitute.
Torts are usually meant
to protect private rights of individuals and provide relief to injury caused by
violation of these private rights. The very next question which arises is, what
is a private right? The private rights are the rights which are not conferred
by the government i.e. these are the rights which we naturally inherent as a
human, the objective of torts is to compensate the victim rather than punishing
the wrongdoer, unlike the statutory laws which are meant not just to compensate
the victim but also punish the wrong doer and set an precedent to discourage
others from committing the same offense. Torts are usually uncodified
principles evolved out of judicial precedents, these precedents are applied as
per the case facts and applicability of the tort.
Applicability
of Torts in Environmental issues
As mentioned earlier,
torts aim to offer redress for the infringement of private rights. However,
when discussing environmental issues, even if a court case revolves around the
violation of individual rights, the scale of the problem is significant enough that
it impacts everyone in the vicinity or even the population at large, so it is
not just infringement of private rights but also violation of public rights.
Though torts deal
violation of private rights, Environmental issues can be taken up under torts like
Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass, Strict Liability, Constitutional Tort etc.
- Nuisance can be divided into
two parts, Private Nuisance: A private nuisance is an activity or
condition that interferes with the use and enjoyment of privately owned lands, without
an actual invasion of the property. Public Nuisance: Public nuisance is
causing harm to the morals, safety, or health of the community, is deemed an
offense against the state. Examples of such activities include blocking a
public road, contaminating air and water, running a house of prostitution, and
storing explosives, all of which are considered public nuisances.
When we talk about nuisance in environmental context we are usually talking about Public nuisance.
Negligence: Negligence may be defined as breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would, do or doing something which a Prudent reasonable man would not do, actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or observing ordinary care and skill toward a person to whom the defendant owes a duty of observing ordinary care and skill.
In the context of environmental issues, a company may be held negligent if its activities result in environmental damage or harm to individuals. This may include cases of soil contamination, water pollution, or other environmental harm.
Trespass:
Strict Liability: Strict liability is the principle according to which the individual is held liable for his action irrespective of his intent. In other words, under strict liability principle the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove whether the defendant had a wrong intent or his act was caused due to negligence, the defendant should compensate duly for his act.
Constitutional torts: The core of constitutional tort lawsuits is the infringement of rights, which are typically derived from the Bill of Rights or other constitutional clauses that shield people from excessive or improper use of government power. The idea is especially important in legal systems where people can file lawsuits against the government for violating their constitutional rights.
In India time and again
Courts had used torts principles to deliver justice which not just provided
compensation to the victim but also protected environment and enforced certain
principle like ‘Polluter must pay’ or ‘Right to clean environment’. The right
to clean environment falls under Article 21 of Indian Constitution
- Endosulfan Case : Kerala Government until 2011 used to spray Endosulfan pesticide in cashew, cotton, tea, paddy, fruits plantation to protect it from pest, but the ill effect of this pesticide spray was the population that lived here suffered various serious medical issues. When the matter reached to Supreme Court of India, the court held that State of Kerala was liable for the plight of the affected people and ordered the government to pay monetary compensation to the affected population. Here court applied the various principles of torts like Negligence, Strict liability and constitutional torts.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India refers to series of environmental cases brought to Supreme Court by Public interest litigation. In these series of cases the doctrine of absolute liability and polluter must pay evolved in Indian context. In one of the judgment the then Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati said that, “The measure of compensation in such cases must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have deterrent effect.”
Also in these series of cases court not just awarded compensation to the victims of the cases but also extend the purview of Article 21 of Indian constitution by incorporating Right to clean environment under Article 21. So in the future cases the plaintiff can not only demand for compensation but also demand justice under constitutional torts.
Vellore citizens’ welfare forum v. Union of India: The case facts were, in State of Tamil Nadu many tanneries and industries were operating which were releasing untreated water in water bodies, due to which the drinking water of the city was getting polluted and the agricultural land was also getting degraded due to underground water pollution leaving the land unfit for agricultural purposes. Industries were contending that the safe limits standard given for untreated water disposal by the State Pollution Control Board were unjustifiable.
Here the Supreme Court gave decision in favour of plaintiff and also applied the principle of strict or absolute liability but court also directed the state pollution control borad and state government to have “Precautionary Principles” in place to not let such incident happen again. The Precautionary principle can be align with a tort principle i.e. Breach of Duty of Care which is a fundamental unit of Negligence.
Ram Bhaj Singh v. Babulal: In this case plaintiff was a practicing doctor and in front of his clinic defendant had built a Stone crushing machine unit due to which the plaintiff suffered noise pollution, air pollution and physical inconvenience. The Court categorized this as a disturbance caused by noise, deemed manageable within the scope of tort law. In various other instances, courts have adopted analogous reasoning when addressing issues concerning dust, fumes, and similar factors.
No comments:
Post a Comment