Environmental adjudication may rely on expert technical opinion, while the precautionary principle places the burden on the proponent.

Environmental disputes involving complex scientific and technological questions may be assisted by an expert environmental appellate body, which can investigate facts and provide technical opinion to aid constitutional courts; this reference does not create new jurisdiction but supports informed adjudication consistent with environmental protection and sustainable development. The precautionary principle also applies in environmental decision-making, so preventive action need not wait for full scientific certainty where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. In that setting, the burden lies on the developer or industrialist proposing the activity to show that it is environmentally safe and benign.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in environmental matters involving complex scientific and technological questions, the Supreme Court and High Courts may refer the scientific and technical aspects to an expert environmental appellate body for investigation and opinion. (ii) Whether the precautionary principle and the related burden of proof rule govern environmental decision-making so that the party proposing an activity must establish that it is environmentally benign.

Issue (i): Whether, in environmental matters involving complex scientific and technological questions, the Supreme Court and High Courts may refer the scientific and technical aspects to an expert environmental appellate body for investigation and opinion.

Analysis: Environmental disputes often raise specialised scientific questions that are difficult for generalist courts to evaluate on the basis of adversarial evidence alone. The Court held that, in such matters, it is permissible and appropriate to obtain the assistance of an expert body possessing both judicial and technical expertise, so that investigation, analysis of facts, and consideration of objections may be undertaken in aid of the Court's adjudicatory function. The Court further noted that such a reference does not confer a new jurisdiction on the expert body, but uses its expertise to assist constitutional courts in arriving at an informed decision consistent with environmental protection and sustainable development.

Conclusion: Yes. The Court may refer environmental questions of a scientific and technical character to an expert environmental appellate authority for investigation and opinion.

Issue (ii): Whether the precautionary principle and the related burden of proof rule govern environmental decision-making so that the party proposing an activity must establish that it is environmentally benign.

Analysis: The Court explained that modern environmental law rejects exclusive reliance on full scientific certainty before preventive action may be taken. Where there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental harm, the absence of complete scientific certainty cannot justify inaction. In such cases, the burden lies on the developer or industrialist who seeks to alter the status quo to demonstrate that the proposed activity is environmentally safe. The Court treated these principles as part of Indian environmental law and linked them to constitutional values and statutory environmental obligations.

Conclusion: Yes. The precautionary principle applies, and the burden is on the proponent of the activity to show that it is environmentally benign.

Final Conclusion: The matter was not finally decided on the merits of the industrial dispute, but was referred to an expert environmental authority for opinion on the core scientific questions, while reaffirming the governing environmental principles.

Ratio Decidendi: In environmental cases involving scientific uncertainty and complex technical issues, courts may rely on expert environmental bodies for opinion, and preventive action may be taken on the precautionary principle even without full scientific certainty, with the burden placed on the activity proponent to show absence of environmental harm.

---