LANDMARK CASE
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu
(1999) 2 SCC 718 · Supreme Court of India · Environmental law
At a glance
- Citation: (1999) 2 SCC 718
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Environmental law
- In one line: The burden lies on the developer to show the activity is safe, under the precautionary principle, and expert bodies should advise courts.
1 Facts
A hazardous industry was allowed near reservoirs supplying drinking water to Hyderabad.
2 Issue
Who bears the burden of proof in environmental cases?
3 What the court decided
The burden lies on the developer to show the activity is safe, under the precautionary principle, and expert bodies should advise courts.
4 Why it matters
It shifted the burden of proof in environmental law.
5 Think about it
Why place the burden on the industry?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Environmental law
- Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) 1 SCC 412
- Centre for Environmental Law, WWF India v. Union of India (Asiatic Lion) (2013) 8 SCC 234
- Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496
- Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
- Lafarge Umiam Mining v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← A.K. Gopalan v. State of MadrasABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.