In A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU (II), AIR 2001 SC 3215, the Supreme Court endorsed the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE shifting the BURDEN OF PROOF:

1. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (II), the Supreme Court elaborated the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. 2. The Court held that the precautionary principle includes the rule that the burden of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 3. This reverses the traditional civil law burden of proof — instead of the affected person proving harm, the polluter must prove safety. 4. The principle has been applied in subsequent environmental cases (cf. Karnataka Industrial Areas Dev Board v. Kenchappa, 2006). 5. Hence option B is correct. _Source: EPA 1986 / Constitution of India / Stockholm/Rio/Paris / Indian SC environmental jurisprudence — A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (II), AIR 2001 SC 3215_