“Environmental failures may lead to financial loss, reputational damage and business discontinuity.” Comment with reference to leading case laws on the subject.

Environmental failures may lead to financial, reputational damage and business discontinuity as well. Environmental non-compliances may, not only result in huge financial liability or reputation wreck, but also may result in business discontinuity or huge public damage. The following case studies would throw some light on the impact of environmental failures. Sri Ram Food and Fertilizer Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086) In that case, a major leakage of Oleum Gas affected a large number of persons, both amongst the workmen and public. The Supreme Court held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to any one on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity resulting in the escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such a liability is not subject to any exception. Dehradun Valley Case (Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652; see also AIR 1988 SC 2187) In that case, carrying on haphazard and dangerous limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie Hill range of the Himalaya, mines blasting out the hills with dynamite, extracting limestone from thousands of acres had upset the hydrological system of the valley. The Supreme Court ordered the closing of limestone quarrying in the hills and observed and this would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance. Effluents by tanneries in river Ganga (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court directed that the work of those tanneries be stopped, which were discharging effluents in River Ganga and which did not set up primary effluent treatment plants. It held that the financial incapacity of the tanners to set up primary effluent treatment plants was wholly irrelevant. The Court observed the need for (a) imparting lessons in natural environment in educational institutions, (b) group of experts to aid and advise the Court to facilitate judicial decisions, (c) constituting permanent independent centres with professional public spirited experts to provide the necessary scientific and technological information to the Court, and (d) setting up environmental courts on regional basis with a right to appeal to the Supreme Court.