Development of Tort Law in India

Submitted by Supervised By

Hrishikesh Susawat Dr. Sushila

(28 LLB 17)

National Law University,

Delhi (India)

2017

1
 Declaration
I hereby declare that the work done in research paper “Development of Tort Law in
India” submitted at National Law University, Delhi carried out under the supervision
of Dr. Sushila is an outcome of my work. The sources from which all the extracts and ideas
have been taken were duly acknowledge. The research work is free from any plagiarism issue
to the best of my knowledge.

Hrishikesh Susawat
National Law University, Delhi
30 November, 2017

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
TITLE NO.

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE 2

Chapter 1 - Synopsis 4
Chapter 2- Development of Tort Law in India
8

Chapter 3 – overview of development of tort law in 13

different countries

Chapter 4 – Future course of tort law in India 16

Conclusion 18

Bibliography
19

3
 Chapter 1
Development of tort law in India.
Introduction
For the existence of different people in civilized society state imposes certain restriction on
individuals to protect the legal rights of individuals granted to them for the stability of society.
The duties imposed by state to protect legal right of individuals is what today called Law of
Torts. Law of torts is basic pre-requisite of the society for its existence. Tort is basically a civil
wrong arises due to breach of duty. Tort is French word which means “wrong” in English and
tortum in Latin means crooked or twisted.

As it was established how important Law of Torts for existence of a society, it becomes very
important to study Law of Torts development India.

The evolution of law of torts is based from the “chancellor’s writ system” in England in 13 th
century1 to the present time realm of tort law which is very dynamic, expansive, and vast. Law
of torts is wholly the English law of torts which is basically based on ‘common law”. Tort law
has much narrower conception than English law under Hindu law and Muslim law tort. It was
administered as rules of good conscience, equity, and justice to made it suitable for Indian
conditions in accordance with principle2. The privy council interpreted these expressions to
mean the rules of English law if found applicable to Indian circumstances. Earlier tort was
basically a part of law and heavily depended on stare decisis, jurisprudence, precedence
because tort law was not codified3. Development of tort law in India is due to lack of continuity
and stability in judgement because in Indian legal system, compensation for wrong occupies
less prominent place than punishment for wrong. Later justice Bhagwati in landmark M.C.
Mehta4 case said that “we have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms in highly
industrialized economy to deal with the problems arising there. We have to build our own
jurisprudence and are ready to collect light from whatever resources”. Later more tortious
liability emerged such as medical tort, environmental tort, parental tort, state liability, and many
more. It was also established that civil courts can try all suits of civil nature under section 9 of
The code of civil procedure to apply law of torts as principle of justice, equity and good
conscience. In the recent judgement of jay Lakshmi salt works (p) ltd. V. state of Gujarat5

1
Ramaswamy Iyer, the law of torts, 10 edition, page 10.
2
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The law of torts, 26 edition, page 2.
3
Durga Das Basu, The law of torts, kamal law house, page 3.
4
M.C. Mehta - 1987 SCR (1) 819
5
jay Lakshmi salt works (p) ltd. V. state of Gujarat - (1994) 3 WCC 492

4
justice Saha stated that law of torts is entirely structure and founded on morality. This leads us
to an understanding that development of tort law in India is very meagre because in country
like India people were not aware of their legal rights and doesn’t have any understanding about
violation of their legal rights. Even if they get to know about their they don’t proceed to court
as fee of lawyers was very high and the compensation provided by court approval that legal
right was infringed was also very nominal6. As law of tort was not codified law the decisions
was totally based on English decisions which was decided on totally different society set-up
from Indian societies. This leads us conclusion that development of tort law in India is very
different than development of other countries.

Literature review

Researcher in the research is mainly relying on books, important cases, and articles from
authentic source. As the ambit of topic is very wider the researcher is relying too limited
sources. In the article Law of Torts author is the history of evolution of tort law and researcher
is building the argument further. In the article Causes of meagre development of tort law in
India author is trying to explain the difficulties which arises during the development of tort
law in India and researcher is going to study it further. In the Article law of torts in India
author is explaining how tort law evolved in India and factors helpful in evolution and the
researcher is further going to study it more deeply to describe these factors. Case Jay Lakshmi
salt works (p) ltd. V. state of Gujarat is based on negligence of state and researcher will
focus on duty of care required by state in its territory. In landmark judgment of MC Mehta v.
UOI, supreme Court interpreted the principle of negligence, absolute liability and strict
liability and researcher will focus on these aspects more.

Statement of research problem

What is the difference in origin of tort law in India with respect to other countries and the future
course of tort law in India and other countries?

6
Durga Das Basu, The law of torts, kamal law house, page 4.

5
Research objective

 To analyse development of tort law in India by focussing on history of tort law.

 To analyse development of tort law in India with respect to other countries.
 To study need, and future course of tort law in India.

Research questions

 Whether the development of tort law in India by the legislation is meagre?

 Whether development of tort law in India is similar to the development of tort law in
other countries?
 Whether future course of tort law in India require clarification on some subject matter
or new legislation is required?

Hypothesis

The jurisprudence of tort law in India has been interpreted through case laws. This research
paper is answer of two questions

 Whether tort law was developed through legislation in India and in what ways?
 Whether any further clarification in any subject matter of tort law?

Research methodology

The methodology considered in the project is doctrinal and descriptive. That is published
material is used for the project and qualitative analysis of arguments has done by researcher.
The sources used for it was first primary sources like acts, bill, statutes and another is secondary
sources as trusted internet sites, articles, books, legal databases and other resources from the
library.

6
Chapetrisation

First chapter of this research paper is introduction to the research project and introduction of
what is tort law. In second chapter the researcher is focusing on how tort law evolved in India.
In third chapter the researcher is focusing on the difficulties arises out during development of
tort law by focusing on difference between development in different countries. In fourth
chapter the researcher focused on future course of tort law in India and its betterment.

7
 Chapter 2

Development of tort law in India

Development of tort law in India was initially very meagre because people of Indian country
were not well educated.7 If they have knowledge than due to poverty or some other reason not
able to get justice and if they still try for justice than delay by courts remain the hurdle between
justice and Indians8. This section deal with development of tort law in India by various
legislation drafting to deliver justice. Some of those legislations have been discussed here:

Environmental Law

1. The Environmental (protection) Act, 1986.

2. The Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974.
3. Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Environmental Law

The Environment (protection) Act, 1986.

Decline was witnessed by people in loss of biodiversity and environment quality and for control
and protection of pollution demands was continuously growing. Acts such as Air Act and Water
Act delivered at the UN conference held in Stockholm 1972 which were sought to be applied
by legislation. In India there was a need to enact comprehensive legislation on the subject as
India was unable to implement the conference decision to that extent. Later the above stated
comprehensive legislation was passed.

Major objectives of legislation were:

7
Durga Das Basu, The Law of Torts, kamal Law House (2010), pg.3.
8
Id.

8
  General area of environment need to be focused more rather than covering other
environmental hazards and particular aspects.
 Committee was formed by centre to look for these matter which have power to make
such necessary measure in the scope of legislation.

Leading case laws

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- In this case court said that in order to improve and
protect environment and in order to improve health in future and present the non-CNG
buses should be removed out and CNG buses should be used9.
 Goa Foundation, Goa v Diksha Holdings Private Limited and Others- In this case court
approach towards environment related issues was clarified by court. In this statement
court decided in a manner eliminating all unsustainable development due to
unscientific activity and ecological destruction because there is lack of clarity in correct
approach10.
 Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India – The scope of the Act was defined
by this case. To protect environment and control pollution by creating an authority with
adequate power was main theme of the Act11.
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, etc. v. Union of India – Responsibility of
repair damage was main focus of the case. Offending industries have the responsibility
for damage repairing. Central Govt. was given task to determine to determine the
measures required for remedy12.
 N.D. Jaylal v.Union of India – Sustainable development was discussed in this case.
Right to life idea was enshrined in this Act because under Article 21 necessity of Right
to life was determined in the Act and it also deal about attending sustainable
development through the Act13. In another similar case named Justice R.S. Sharma
v.State of Rajasthan discussion lead down for maintenance of all green areas in
Rajasthan cities and all towns instead of using land for commercial purpose to ensure
balance between human settlement and ecology14.

9
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1696.
10
Goa Foundation, Goa v Diksha Holdings Private Limited and Others, AIR 2001 SC 184.
11
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR1996 SC 2715.
12
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action,etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
13
N.D. Jaylal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867.
14
Justice R.S. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Raj. 175.

9
 The water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974

Under this Act it was stated that no industrial effluent will be discharged into the river and
rivers will flow continuously. At that time there was pressure on water resources and
environmental resource because at that time industrial development is at peak in India. The
water resources were used by industries and discharged without being treated properly.
Due to heavy industrialisation government was forced to look into the matter. In 1962 a
committee was formed by the government to draft a legislation to deal with problem
regarding river and water pollution. Later the committee in 1965 came up with a draft bill
which later became Water Act, 1976. Major objectives of the Act were:

 To adhere the problem set prevention for both state level and central level pollution.
 Penalties were introduced for any violation.
 To test the amount of pollution laboratories were established.

In a case named Krishna Kant Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority on
Simbhaoli Sugar Mills which is sugar manufacturing industry a fine of 5 crores was
slapped for discharging highly toxic Ganges between area of Garh Mukteshwar and
Narora. “polluters pay principal” principal was applied here15.

Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981

Due to heavy industrialisation and continuously increasing industries increased problems of

Air pollution. Discharge of toxic substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, traffic pollutants,
and use of fuel with high carbon posed problems in day to day life of humans. To deal with
this several policy discussions were taken by UN conference on human environment. The main
objectives of it were:

 To control air pollution and relate quality of air proper implementation of decision taken
by UN conference.
 To control water and air pollution central board was formed.

Leading case:

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – due to the leakage of Oleum gas from caustic Chlorine
Plant affecting several people The Supreme Court in this case directed to resume

15
Krishna Kant Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority,2014 SCC Online NGT 2364.

10
 production on certain conditions. It was PIL and Supreme Court stated that it would not
came to light and no improvement would be done if case could not have been filed. In
the case respondent was fined to pay Rs. 10,000 to the plaintiff 16.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In the light of unscrupulous growing market by the vendors and unawareness of Right to the
consumers and to protect the consumers from the violation of their Rights this Act was passed.
To protect consumers Rights from violation initiatives was passed by UN council on economic
and social matter in different countries to develop institutions for consumer’s protection and to
provide suitable political and socio-economic environment17. To include provisions regarding
limitation which was not present in the original Act and to widen the scope of the legislation
various amendments were made to the Act by legislation and ordinance. There were several
judgements by court appreciating the approach of the Act. The main objectives of the Act were:

 To give security and safety to the consumer against the unscrupulous market practise
by vendors.
 To seek redressal and Right to be hear by the court.
 To curb the unfair and unscrupulous trade practise of sellers18.

A consumer dispute is defined as a dispute when an person denies dispute made against him
by another person19. Limitations for complaint filing was defined in 1993 amendment while to
make the provision easier and provide speedy justice it was amended in 2002 and 2003.

Leading cases laws

 U.P. Power Corporation v. Anis Ahmed – This case deals with the Electric Act and
technical aspect of complaint. In this case it was held that complaint in the case was
wrong as the definition of the Act was different from requirement and limited in the
case20.

16
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965.
17
The Consumer Protection Act 1986
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
U.P. Power Corporation v. Anis Ahmed, AIR 2013 SC 2766.

11
  Haryana SEB v Mamchand – IN this case apex court focused on the risk of getting
defective product from the seller and producer in growing and competitive market. It
was also laid down that Act should be treated as beneficiary for consumer and favour
consumer and to provide redressal of their problem21.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Motor vehicle Act was first passed in 1914 and get replaced in 1939 and Act of 1988 was
third in row. The most debated Act was 1939 Act and was not to the mark after many
amendments in fast changing field of technology. There was need of efficient of legislation
which could compete with changing scenarios of technical world. In 1984 a working group
was made by Law commission and various committees after huge demands by members
of parliament and public. By meeting of transport ministers of all states and supreme
court’s judgement in 1987 a new Motor Vehicles Act was passed in 1988. Major objectives
of the Act were:

 Improve technology and make various changes in road transport.

 Earlier Acts required updating, simplification, and rational implementation.
 In light of technology changes address concern over safety on road.

Leading cases

 Syed Mehboob v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd – This judgement by Supreme
Court treated Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as progressive in nature but at the same
time it has been promulgated for claimant benefit and there is ned of interpretation
in Act to give benefit to aggrieved party22.
 M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty – Judgement in this case was
delivered by Supreme Court and this was a landmark judgement. In this case
suggestions were given by the court and were taken into consideration while
passing the Act. In this case court observed that petitioner demanded huge damages
from other party and at that time individual life was treated very cheaply according
to existing law. By citing various cases such as Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd.

21
Haryana SEB v Mamchand, (2006) 4 SCC 649.
22
Syed Mehboob v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 625.

12
 V. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Others court that existing law is inadequate and need
to be amended23.

Later the Act of 1988 was again amended in 2000 to insert a new section for license
renewal and alteration of motor vehicle.

In the end of the chapter it can be concluded that tort law in India had developed through
Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and COPRA 1986 and through electronic media and print, and
public awareness. The above whole discussion shows contribution of legislation in
development of tort law in India it had taken tort law to the newer level.

Chapter 3

Overview of development of Tort Law in different countries

Tort law is “a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated
damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other
merely equitable obligations24” according to Sir John Salmond. The researcher has restricted
himself to the discussion of development of Tort law in countries like England, France and
India due to existence of different legal and political circumstances and the difficulties faced
by them due to environment and social condition.

Tort law in England

In England and Wales common law was followed which is English tort law 25. It distinguishes
between criminal wrong and civil wrong. A tort is a civil wrong and action against it was taken
by citizens not police officials and matter was properly dealt by judge in court.

Following the Roman law, for many years English common law was based on pigeonholes
theory described by Sir John Salmond. Wrongs such as negligence, trespass, and conversion
this theory require nomination of wrong under the head. Besides the existence of common law

23
M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty, AIR 1987 SC 2158.
24
Salmond & Heuston, Law of Torts, 20th Edition pg.3.
25
Durga Das Basu, The Law of Torts, pg. 2

13
system which was based on idea of equity, justice and good conscience26 the English common
law was based on the legislation called as The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, 1977. Due
to continuous litigation on subject matter of trespass of goods in England, the Act was passed
to clarify confused state of affairs. Under The Tort Act if 1977 principal regarding matter of
wrongful interference of goods, their conversion and detention and damages which have to be
awarded was clearly laid down. Some other notable legislations were also passed in England
which are:

1. Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act,1962

2. Defamation Act,1952 and Defamation Act,1996
3. Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act,1945 and
4. Fatal Accidents Act, 1976

The process used by English courts for development of tort law in England can be considered
equally important for India as they many times referred to Indian court in delivering
judgements especially in The Law Reform Act, 1945.

Development of Tort Law in France

French tort law evolved in most desirable manner by discouraging undesirable social
behaviour. Evolution of French tort law was in such a way that today it not only provides
remedy for civil breach of duties but also provide damages for rights which has been not given
due recognition by the statue. By this the law became dynamic in nature and introduced a
method for improvement of legal system27.

The civil liability in France was based on non- cumul des responsibility and were divided into
contract and tort28. Meaning of non- cumul des responsibility is non concurrence of action
further implying distinct character of tortious liability and contractual liability. According to
Article 1382 of French Civil Code if a person got legally injured by someone else than it is
duty of that person to pay damages for repair of such injury29. In addition to it Article 1383

26
Id.
27
Andre Tunc, “A Codified Law of Tort- The French Expression” [1979] PL 1053.
28
Id.
29
Id.

14
talks about negligence and states that person will be held liable for his negligent act which he
does30.

Wording of Article 1382 clearly states the necessary elements for imposing liability under
negligence:

1. Damage
2. Fault
3. Casual link between them.

Claimant has the burden of proof all these elements.

A fault may result either from omission to perform act or from commission of an act. Fault is
an error of conduct which can be measured from the view of reasonable man standard. In
French person can be held liable for when there is proof of damage, fault and link between the
both, no special duty of care was required towards the plaintiff. Wrongful act towards the
plaintiff is not required for commission of tort31. In French law there is little attention paid to
development and scope of tort law. Under Article 1382 and 1383 of civil code it has been
found not to contain any a priori limitation on nature or scope protected rights.

In France strict liability is more popular as it can be witnessed by number strict liability rules
for persons and things present there which exist from 1896 and general strict liability rule from
1991. Contrary to the intention of legislature, court derived these general rules from Article
1384 (1) of civil code32. Liability cannot be established when defendant was able to prove
force measure which is an irresistible effect or power, whereas as leading to contributory
negligence lower the compensation amount to be paid.

Tort Law in India

Indian tort law is English tort law application modified according to situation of India. Tort
law in India is uncodified more or less. The civil courts in India under section 9 of CPC are
entitled to take tortious liability cases33. For implementation of tort law in India various Acts
were passed like Water Pollution Act, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Air Pollution Act etc. After

30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
CPC Section 9

15
Bhopal Gas Tragedy the Environment Protection Act, 1986 also came into effect34. Various
debates were held to give importance to environment protection like noise pollution, water
pollution etc. Passing of these environmental laws opened a new way for citizens to approach
the court. Section 375(1) of CrPC court to award compensation to those whose rights violated
by a civil suit35.

In the end of this chapter this can be said that though all the laws have not been particularly
legislated but there are still enough ways present in Indian code to file a successful civil case.
When there is any requirement for law the need was satisfied through the application of
judgement like principal of justice, precedent, the existing laws, and good conscience and
equity by awarding damages in India regularly36.

Chapter 4
Future Course of Tort Law

as we have seen that earlier tort law in India was not properly implemented but by several new
legislations like Motor Vehicle Act and Environmental Act and many more, damages were
provided to plaintiffs. But for better future course of tort law in India still clarification is
required in some subject matter. Here researcher has focused on some of those subject matter.

Origin and Meaning of Sovereign Immunity

On the ground public policy, after committing wrong the justification given by the state on its
wrongful conduct is Sovereign Immunity. This is for tortious liability is complete defence. This
principal was borrowed from British Jurisprudence and based on Common Law principal that
king cannot be held liable no wrong, negligence or misconduct nor his servants. Protection
given to President from 1858 is present example of it. Article 300 talks about liability of union
and state but there is no separate legislation on it.

Development needed

34
Vijay Purohit, Law of Torts in India, (lawyersclubindia, 30 August 2008),
<http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Law-of-Torts-in-India-348.asp> accessed on 25 October.
35
Id.
36
Id.

16
The unclear precedent has marred this area due to clear guidelines. Some prominent
judgements like Kasturi Lal v. State of UP holds great importance37. Other cases of
prominence are State of A.P. V. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, Registered Society v. Union of
India, and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. In Nilbati’s case the Apex court decided to
compensate petitioner for his son’s death in police custody. Court hold that under the Article
32 and Article 226 for fundamental rights enforcement the principal of Sovereign immunity
doesn’t apply here38. In another Supreme court judgement in case Registered Society v. Union
of India it was held that to grant damages power of court cannot be limited when under Article
21 personal liberty and fundamental rights to life were violated39. The latest case of State of
A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy that in present time there is no relevance of distinction
between non-sovereign and sovereign. Doctrine pf Sovereign immunity is no longer valid was
Apex court’s decision40. But when we analyse The Competition Act, 2002 it is inevitable to
establish distinction between both of them. So after the decision in Ramakrishna Reddy’s there
exist an ambiguity and there is need to clarify this either by legislation or new case law.

There are various matters which require clarification as there exist ambiguity and some
constitutionality also. Either new case law or a Legislation is required for this.

37
Kasturi Lal v. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC
38
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
39
Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979
40
State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083

17
 Conclusion

To give special attention to major areas of tort by Indian democracy there has been
disseminated effort highlighted by government effort or by citizens of country. To meet the
diverse demands that arose several acts and statues were made and amendments were also done.
There are some matters which were addressed through provisions in CrPC, IPC, CPC which
were not addressed through separate legislation like under section 133 of CrPC ‘Nuisance’ was
addressed.

The legislations like Motor Vehicles Act, The Environmental Act and many more were
addressed by enacting separate legislation for public benefit. There were various obstacles in
formation of these legislation but these provide a direction of individuals rights protected under
common law. Contrary to this earlier while forming theses legislation knowledge was
completely absent. But now the scenario has changed as there are more frequent complaint
under the enacted legislation rather uncodified part of common law and tort. After looking
development of tort law in India it can be said that there is sharp requirement of clear policy
dealing with the drafting of comprehensive and suitable legislation encircling the idea of
English law which can be suitable in Indian scenario, equity and good conscience and principle
justice for speedy and quick trial and the judgement.

Through electronic media and print the rights possessed by individuals must be published to
prevent them from violation. It will restore the lost trust of people which failed regarding civil
system and bring clarity in law. It can easily have concluded that tort law was development in
India through Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Various
legislations also show the crucial role played by the legislations in tort law development in
India. Thus, in tort law development in India the role of legislation in existing political, social,
and economic conditions can be said to be of great importance and brought it to a newer level.
But still on the other hand there exist some subject matters like Sovereign Immunity and civil
Defamation which require clarification by some case law or by new legislation.

Thus, it can be said that one can file successful civil case and can get damages through enough
enacted ingredients present in Indian codes. Through existing judgements and English
legislation applications the need to enact laws was satisfied and justice was delivered by
providing damages and it could be hoped by keeping faith in democracy that the by taking just

18
and policy decision the need of tort law development by enacting new legislation and by
spreading awareness about the law of trots.

Bibliography

Books

 Ramaswamy Iyer, the law of torts, 10 edition.

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The law of torts, 26 edition.
 Durga Das Basu, The law of torts, kamal law house.
 S.R.Myneni, Law of Torts and Consumer, Asia Law House.
 Salmond & Heuston, Law of Torts, 20th Edition.

Articles

 Andre Tunc, “A Codified Law of Tort- The French Expression” [1979].

 Vijay Purohit, “Law of Torts in India”, [2008].
 C.M. Abraham and Sushila Abraham, The Bhopal Case and the Development of
Environment Law in India.
 S.C. Tbanvi, law of torts, Indian Legal system
 Dr. Madhuri Parikh, Tortious liability for Environmental Harm; A Tale of Judicial
Craftsmanship, Manupatra
 R.V. kelkar, Law of Torts, The Indian Law Institute and Indian Legal System.

Case laws

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1696.

 Goa Foundation, Goa v Diksha Holdings Private Limited and Others, AIR 2001 SC
184.
 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union Of India, AIR1996 SC 2715.
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action,etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
 N.D. Jaylal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867.
 Justice R.S. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Raj. 175.
 Krishna Kant Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority,2014 SCC Online NGT
2364

19
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965.
 Haryana SEB v Mamchand, (2006) 4 SCC 649.
 Syed Mehboob v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 625.
 Kasturi Lal v. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC
 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
 Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979
 State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083

20