Experts Opinion-Court not bound to follow it blindly-Expert cannot act as judge or jury-Final decision by the Judge. Right to life includes right to environment adequate for human health and well being-High potency danger to human life in vicinity involved due to Ammonia Storage Tank.
On an examination by the courts the materials placed before the court whether they are by the scientists or by the experts, if the court finds that the conclusions reached by the courts are unsatisfactory, the court is not bound to accept the reports saying with folded hands that after all the report is that of a committee of experts and the court has not expertise on the matter enquired into by the experts. If the court is not satisfied with the manner of examination or investigation, the court is not bound to act on the expert's opinion. The court is not bound to follow blindly the opinion of the experts. It has to be borne in mind when assessing the opinion of experts that "clearly it is not the province of the expert to act as judge or jury". Opinions must be supported by reasons and it is the reason and not blank finding that is important. It must not be lost sight of those experts given evidence and do not decide the issue.
While running hazardous industries using highly advanced technology, it is imperative that human safety be given prime importance. Various facts and reports of the authorities and experts revealed that the location is most dangerous strategic, sensitive and unsuitable on the point of safety. The human population of Cochin City and Wellington Island should not be compelled to remain under the dark shadow of genocide. Life on earth can never be peaceful if it is surrounded in perpetual anxiety and fear of extermination on account of an avoidable human activity.[ Law Society of India vs. FACT. AIR 1994 Ker 308. [Varghese Kalliath & K.J.Joseph {JJ}]
Expert's Opinion - Different conflicting views - Agency must have discretion to rely on -
When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts, even if, as an original matter, a Court might find contrary views more persuasive. On the other hand, in the context of reviewing a decision not to supplement an EIS (Environment Impact Study), Courts should not automatically defer to the agency's express reliance on an interest in finality without carefully reviewing the record and satisfying themselves that the agency has made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of significance - or lack of significance- of the news information. A contrary approach would not simply render judicial review generally meaningless, but would be contrary to the demand that Courts ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors"
[Supreme Court of United States. Marsh vs. Oregon Natural Resources Council. 1989 (490) US 360=104 L Ed 2nd 377]