The hiatus between legislative planning and the realities of environmental problems came to the fore at a recent workshop on the National Environmental Tribunal Bill (NETB) of 1992 organised by the Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund, Delhi. The participants, mostly jurists and lawyers, discussed not only what the bill was but what it ought to be, and where its provisions went off the mark. In order to facilitate compensation for damages caused to persons, property and the environment by accidents, the bill seeks to establish a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases. It attempts to impose strict liability for damages arising out of any accident that might occur while handling hazardous substances. The discussions revealed that the NETB overlapped an earlier legislation in its purview, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 which sought to provide for immediate relief to persons affected by accidents occurring while handling hazardous substances. It also provided for compulsory insurance, no fault liability, formation of Environment Relief Fund; the amount of damage payable was spelt out. The NETB, however, provides for utilisation of the award money towards restoration of the environment apart from paying compensation to injured parties. No limits have been prescribed as to the compensation to be paid under the NETB and, unlike the district collector who could adjudicate compensation under the earlier Act, the NETB provides for a adjudicate under the Public Liability Insurance Act. The participants did not appreciate the limited scope of the NETB. For instance, the bill did not cover liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damages but dealt only with damages arising out of an ‘accident’ occurring while ‘handling’ any ‘hazardous substance’. The Tribunal to be set will have a limited role, that of a compensation tribunal. Even the accident caused by the handling of any hazardous substance will depend upon the quantity to be specified by the central government though everyone knows how an accident can be caused by a small quantity of the substance. It was felt that the jurisdiction of the tribunal be enlarged so that it could act as a true environment court dealing with all matters pertaining to environmental damage and rehabilitation. The bill did not deal with the prevention of environmental disasters and the tribunal had not power to avoid environmental degradation. In fact, the tribunal should have the power to issue injunctions and restraint orders against defaulting industries. No time frame for settlement of claims had been provided, and this could result in inordinate delays. No provision had been made for technical experts to assess the damage or the nature of precautions that need to be taken. Exemptions from the bill in respect of any state government or any corporation owned or controlled by the central or state government or any local authority was frowned upon. It was felt that the right made available to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to file claims for damage should be extended to all such organisations and not necessarily to the ones recognised by the central government. The community’s right to environmental hazards as well as provision for legal aid to the indigent should be provided for in the law. The power to form benches of the tribunal, it was suggested, should be given to the tribunal itself and the ‘offenses’ under the Act need to be defined. The provision for transfer of pending environment cases in the various courts to the tribunal to be set up was emphasised. There is no provision in the bill for ‘costs’ or ‘exemplary costs’ which the tribunal could impose. q |
||||
|
||||