M C Mehta Vs UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, " applications for compensation are for enforcement of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and while dealing with such applications we cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach which would defeat the ends of justice….
If this Court is prepared to accept a letter complaining of violation of the fundamental right of an individual or a class of individuals who cannot approach the Court for justice, there is no reason why these applications for compensation which have been made for enforcement of the fundamental right of the persons affected by the oleum gas leak under Art. 21 should not be entertained….
It may now be taken as well settled that Art. 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this Court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights….
If the Court were powerless to issue any direction, order or writ in cases where a fundamental right has already been violated, Art. 32 would be robbed of all its efficacy, because then the situation would be that if a fundamental right is threatened to be violated, the Court can injunct such violation but if the violator is quick enough to take action infringing the fundamental right, he would escape from the net of Art. 32….
The power of the Court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases….
Whether Article 21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in an industry vital to public interest….
Once an authority is deemed to be ‘other authority’ within the meaning of Article 12, it is State for the purpose of all its activities and functions and the American functional dichotomy by which some functions of an authority….
it is immaterial for the purpose of determining whether a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State or not whether it is created by a Statute or under a statute, “the inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence….
It is true that Control is not exercised by the Government in relation to the internal management policies of the Company. However, the control is exercised on all such activities of Shriram which can jeopardize public interest….
we find that Shriram also receives sizeable assistance in the shape of loans and overdrafts running into several crores of rupees from the Government….
Why should a private corporation under the functional control of the State engaged in an activity which is hazardous to the health and safety of the community and is imbued with public interest and which the State ultimately proposes to exclusively run under its industrial policy, not be subject to the same limitations….
rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person’s wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence….
rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority….
We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society…. Law cannot afford to remain static….
We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country….
We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build up our own jurisprudence…
where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity…. such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher.

M C Mehta Vs UOI, AIR 1987 SC 965

This public interest litigation raises some seminal questions concerning the (1) true scope and ambit of Arts. 21 and 32 of the Constitution and (2) principles and norms for determining the liability of large enterprises engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products.

M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC 1997

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "determination of the quantum of pollution fine….
“POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE” has also been applied by this Court in various decisions. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs UOI, AIR 1996 SC 1446, it was held that once the activity carried on was hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on that activity was liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by that activity….
Pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. The powers of this Court under Article 32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner.”

M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "This Court took notice of the news item appearing in the Indian Express dated 25.2.1996 under the caption – “Kamal Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep his dreams afloat.”….
To ecologists, the need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences as providing us with certain laws of nature….
Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public….
large area of the bank of River Beas which is part of protected forest has been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the Motels. We have no hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management….
The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land.”

M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts.”

M C Mehta Vs UOI, AIR 2002 SC 1696

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “Articles 39(e), 47 and 48-A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment…
The two essential features of sustainable development are (a) the precautionary principle, and (b) the polluter pays principle….
The ‘precautionary principle’ was elucidated by this Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs UoI (1996) 5 SCC 647.”

M C Mehta Vs Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “We would also suggest to the Government of India that since cases involving issues of environmental pollution, ecological destruction and conflicts over national resources are increasingly coming up for adjudication and these cases involve assessment and evolution of scientific and technical data, it might be desirable to set up environment courts on the regional basis with one professional Judge and two experts drawn from the Ecological Sciences Research Group keeping in view the nature of the case and the expertise required for its adjudication. There would of course be a right of appeal to this Court from the decision of the environment court.”

Oleum Gas Leak case, AIR 1987 SC 1086

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, Enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

Information Technology Act

you can read information Technology Act 2000 (as amended till date) Here

Miss Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 1858

The Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (the Act)…. Under the notification the candidates admitted against "Government seats" are to pay Rs. 2,000/- per year as tuition fee. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against "Government seats") are to be charged tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The third category is of "Indian students from outside Karnataka", from whom tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 60,000/- per annum is permitted to be charged….
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making "right to education" under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality the fundamental rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate….
The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens….”