Whether the State of Kerala had a duty to control air pollution in the city of Cochin?
Whether the State of Kerala had complied with the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981?
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Section 19 of the Act empowers the State Government is empowered to declare any area within the State as air pollution control area.
Whether these harmful industries should be permitted to operate in these areas?
Whether a regulatory mechanism should be established if they are permitted to function in such areas?
Any industry involved in hazardous or dangerous activities that causes harm to the environment or the people through any accident would be held absolutely liable.
Whether the ‘Public Trust Doctrine’ is applicable in India?
Whether construction undertaken by Span Motels Pvt Ltd. is legally justified?
Whether Mr. Kamal Nath was wrongly accused?
The Public Trust Doctrine first used in Indian jurisprudence in this case states that certain natural resources which have a great significance to the public because of which these resources being privately owned is wholly unjustified. These resources are held in trust by the State and not to be commercially exploited, and the State has a duty to protect the sanctity of nature. Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution extend to natural resources for the purpose of protecting the ecosystem.
The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, which originated in the OSPAR Convention, sets its crux in the prevention and protection of the environment and health of the people. The burden of proof, which lies on the developer must ensure that the absolute liability for harm extends to compensate the victims as well as restore environmental degradation.
Whether the Mathura Oil Refinery and other nearby industries pushed pollutants into the atmosphere that contained oxides of Sulphur and nitrogen which cause acid rain?
Whether Taj Mahal’s discoloration was caused by deposition of dust particles and carbonaceous particles such as black and brown carbon which is light absorbing organic carbon?
Polluter Pays Principle is applied after the environmental degradation has taken place. This principle mandates the person who has caused such an adverse environmental damage to pay for their actions. The polluter not only compensates the victims but also pays for the restoration of the environment.
Whether the Urban Development Authority could be given primacy over the need protect environment?
Whether the need of principle of sustainable development can be ignored over and above the Urban Development?
Whether there is a conflict of public interest?
Whether the action of Arunachal Pradesh Government intaking the impugned decisions is permissible under the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution?
The Principle of Sustainable Development, enunciated in the Stockholm Convention is the notion that development and the environment should not be a ‘chalk-and-cheese’ matter, but must go hand in hand with each other, portraying a balance between urban development and environmental conservation and protection.
The three main remnants of the Public Trust Doctrine are that the property must be available for use by the general public, it must not be sold even for a fair equivalent of money and it should be maintained for particular uses. The Doctrine emphasises on the importance of the management of resources and the environment.
Keeping in mind the importance of preserving and protecting natural resources for future generations as well, the principle of Inter-generational equity sets a base for man to bear the responsibility of protecting and improving the environment and safeguarding it through appropriate management.
Articles 48-A and 51A of the Constitution holds the State and citizens respectively accountable for protecting and safeguarding the natural resources, which are pivotal to the governance in the country.
Whether Maulana Azad was the sole author of the book ‘India Wins Freedom’?
According to the Copyright Act, 1957, Joint Authorship is “when more than one author creates work with the intention of their contributions being merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole”.
In the event of Joint Authorship, the authors will be regarded as co-owners of the copyright that subsists in that work.
The consent of the dead heir's legal representatives is required when there are joint authors and one of them is deceased.
Whether or to what extent copyright attaches to these coupons? In whole or in part?
If the coupons are subject to copyright, has enough copying been done to amount to infringement, and whether it was proper to look at the several parts of the work separately?
Copyright protection exists in the betting industry and intellectual property rights should be protected to prevent infringement.
Whether the Law Society's dealings with the publishers' works “fair dealing(s)” under Sections 29 of the Copyright Act of Canada?
Did the Great Library authorize copyright infringement by maintaining self-service photocopiers and copies of the publishers’ works for its patrons’ use?
Are publishers’ materials “original works” protected under copyright?
For a work to be “original” within, it must be more than a mere copy of another work. At the same time, it need not be creative, in the sense of being novel or unique. What is required to attract copyright protection in the expression of an idea is an exercise of skill and judgment. This aspect of the work is the main point of difference between identifying an original work and a copied work.
The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical process, it should include the intellectual effort of the author.
Whether a compulsory license can be granted in favour of Natco for the production of the patented drug?
Section 84(1) of the Patents Act allows any interested person to make an application to the Controller for the grant of Compulsory License after the expiry of three years from the date of grant of patent on any of the following grounds:
a) That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied
b) That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price
c) That the patented invention does not work in India.
Whether isolated DNA sequences, which are human genes, patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act?
Whether Myriad’s claimed invention BRCA 1 BRCA 2 and BRCA cDNA, the sequence of certain human genes in both isolated and purified forms, fall within the scope of inventions for which a patent may be granted?
Whether the product patents obtained by Myriad Laboratories on the discovery of genes, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, and BRCA cDNA, on the human genome are valid under the provisions of 35 U. S. Code §101 and in consonance with the relevant jurisprudence on the matter?
35 U. S. Code §101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”