000 02334nab a2200229 4500
999 _c11323
_d11323
003 OSt
005 20210218164021.0
007 cr aa aaaaa
008 210218b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100 _aGill, Gitanjali Nain
_939905
245 _aPrecautionary principle, its interpretation and application by the Indian judiciary: ‘When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less’ Humpty Dumpty
260 _bSage,
_c2019.
300 _aVol 21, Issue 4, 2019( 292-308 p.)
520 _aThe precautionary principle is accepted in India as a fundamental tool to promote sustainable development and is employed within Indian environmental governance to promote better health and environmental decisions. Scientific uncertainty is at the core of the precautionary principle. The application of the precautionary principle is an open-ended issue. This article seeks to add to the limited empirical studies on the understanding, appreciation and application of the precautionary principle by key environmental actors, as differing legal responses and decisions may be irreversible before conclusive scientific knowledge and evidence become available. Building on researcher’s unique Indian data, and drawing on the theoretical insights developed by Charles Weiss, an explanatory environmental framework addresses the uncertainty of science by assembling a scale of legal standards arranged in a hierarchy of levels of increasing certainty familiar to lawyers and the judiciary. Reported Indian cases from the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal are selected to illustrate levels of scientific certainty or uncertainty and corresponding legal standards of proof constituting acceptable bases for legal decisions in practical context especially the precautionary principle. The article suggests India should develop a framework of guidelines that would provide an effective roadmap for decision-makers applying the precautionary principle.
650 _aEmpirical data and case law,
_943619
650 _a legal standards of proof,
_943620
650 _a precautionary principle in India,
_943621
650 _ascientific uncertainty
_942737
773 0 _011304
_915506
_dSage, 2019.
_tEnvironmental law review
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1461452919890283
942 _2ddc
_cART