A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999)
Supreme Court on precaution, burden of proof, and lake protection near Hyderabad—how to judge industry risks when science is complex.
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court backed a precaution-first approach. An industry planned within 10 km of Hyderabad’s drinking-water lakes faced strict scrutiny. The Court said: when harm to water and health is possible, the industry must prove safety. Expert input is essential, and government exemptions cannot weaken environmental safeguards.
Issues
- Was APPCB right to reject consent on environmental grounds for a red-category unit near protected lakes?
- Did the appellate authority err in overturning APPCB despite pollution risks?
- Was the State’s exemption from the 10 km restriction under G.O. Ms. No. 111 legally sustainable?
Rules
Precautionary Principle: If serious harm is possible, uncertainty is no excuse. The burden of proof is on the industry to show no damage.
Expert-Led Adjudication: Environmental cases need combined judicial and scientific expertise.
No Dilution by Exemptions: Government relaxations cannot defeat statutory goals or risk public health and ecology.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
APPCB / Petitioners
- Unit is red category; location threatens drinking water sources.
- Law and G.O.s bar such industries in the 10 km belt.
- Appellate authority overlooked precaution and relied on limited affidavits.
Respondent Company
- Claims of eco-friendly technology and safe operations.
- Other government bodies granted approvals; industry need cited.
- Seeks exemption from the 10 km rule for this project.
Judgment
Held: The Supreme Court endorsed the precautionary principle and placed the burden on the industry to prove safety. APPCB’s cautious stance was justified given the 10 km lake-protection policy and red-category risks.
- Appellate interference without robust safeguards was inappropriate.
- Government exemptions that dilute protection are unsustainable.
- Environmental adjudication should integrate technical experts.
The Court stayed the direction to grant consent and referred the matter to the competent expert appellate forum for a time-bound, science-based assessment.
Ratio (Core Legal Principle)
Where public health and water sources are at risk, precaution governs. The industry must prove no harm. Statutory protections and expert evaluation cannot be bypassed by broad exemptions.
Why It Matters
- Protects drinking water for millions by keeping risky industry out of buffer zones.
- Sets a template for expert-led environmental decisions.
- Stops policy dilution via ad hoc exemptions.
Key Takeaways
- Precaution first: uncertainty does not permit risky siting.
- Burden on industry: prove no harm to lakes and health.
- No easy exemptions: environmental buffers must mean something.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “P-R-O-T-E-C-T” → Precaution • Red category risk • Onus on industry • Ten-km buffer • Expert review • Consent stayed • Trust in water safety.
- Ask: Is the site inside a protected buffer?
- Assess: Do data and experts show no harm?
- Act: If doubt remains, deny or condition until safety is proven.
IRAC
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was consent rightly denied for a red-category unit within 10 km of lakes? | Precautionary principle; burden on industry; no dilution by exemptions. | Risks to drinking water; policy bars; limited proof of zero harm. | Consent not to be granted; expert review ordered; stay on HC direction. |
Glossary
- Red Category
- Industry with high pollution potential needing strict siting and controls.
- G.O. Ms. No. 111
- State order restricting development within 10 km of Himayat & Osman Sagar.
- Burden of Proof
- Duty on the project proponent to show no environmental harm.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now