The correct option is (c).
Explanation
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) served as a watershed moment in Indian environmental jurisprudence. It necessitated a shift from a negligence-based liability regime to strict and absolute liability, alongside the constitutional recognition of environmental rights within the Fundamental Rights framework.Statement-wise Analysis:
- Statement 1 is Correct: The Indian judiciary, particularly through the Supreme Court, introduced the 'Polluter Pays' principle and the doctrine of 'Absolute Liability' (notably in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987). This principle mandates that enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities are liable to compensate for any harm caused, without exceptions or defenses based on negligence.
- Statement 2 is Incorrect: Following the tragedy, the legislative framework was strengthened, not relaxed. The Parliament enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 under Article 253 to provide a comprehensive legal framework for environmental protection and to plug gaps in existing laws.
- Statement 3 is Correct: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). In landmark judgments such as Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court declared that the Right to Life includes the right to a wholesome environment, including pollution-free water and air.
Key Takeaway: The post-Bhopal era marked the transition to Absolute Liability for hazardous industries and the judicial integration of the right to a clean environment as an intrinsic part of the Fundamental Right to Life (Article 21).