Sarvajanik Education Society

SARVAJANIK COLLEGE OF LAW

(Constituent College of Sarvajanik University)
Environmental Law
Notes of Case-Law

1. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand and/ others [AIR 1980 SC 1622]
This is the landmark decision of SC related to water and land pollution. In this case, a
municipality claims an inability to provide basic sanitation facilities and prevent street
contamination, as required by Section 123 of the M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961, due to a
claimed lack of financial ability; consequently residents of the municipality successfully
brought suit under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to compel the municipality to
remove the public nuisance.

Summary:
This case concerns the Ratlam municipality’s obligations to its people under Section 123 M.
P. Municipalities Act of 1961. These obligations include the provision of sanitary facilities
and the prevention of street contamination from a nearby alcohol plant. The residents of the
Ratlam municipality, frustrated at the lack of sanitary facilities and the contamination in the
streets, brought suit against the municipality under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure
Code for public nuisance. The municipality argued that, 1) the residents chose to live where
there are no facilities, and 2) the authorities lacked the funds necessary to construct what was
required to comply.

The Magistrate ordered the municipality to provide the proper facilities and construct
drainpipes to abate the contamination. The orderof theMagistrate wasfound unjustified bythe
Sessions Court, but upheld by the High Court.
The Supreme Court then considered whether a Court could affirmatively compel a statutory
body to construct sanitary facilities and drainpipes at great cost. The Supreme Court upheld
the High Court’s order, holding that the Magistrate had the power to compel a statutory body
to comply with the order in the name of public duty. The Supreme Court also held that
Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with punitive temper of S. 188 of Indian
Penal Code operates against statutory bodies, makes prohibitory act a mandatory duty, hence
the same can be used to remove a public nuisance in a limited time period.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that a municipality cannot claim financial inability
when it is responsible for preserving public health. The Supreme Court stated, “responsible
municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and
providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial
inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first
charge on local self-governing bodies.”
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
The municipality was ordered to take immediate action with regards to the contamination and
pollution in the streets. It was also ordered to provide sanitary facilities and services for its
residents within a six-month period.
Significance of the Case:
This decision rejected the city's defence that it lacked resources, noting that the relevant
Indian law obligates the municipality to fulfil its public health duties. This case is also
important for the Supreme Court’s view of courts’ powers to compel the fulfillment of
government duties. Where in the past the courts have been reactive to state harms committed,
the Supreme Court in this case allowed an affirmative action against the municipality.

2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and others v. State of U.P. and
others [AIR 1983 SC 2187] (Doon Valley Case)
This Dehradun lime quarries case is a landmark case in the history of environmental
protection movement in India as
1) it was the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and
ecological imbalance,
2) it recognized the epistolary jurisdiction of the court involving issues of public importance
and
3) it required a balance to be maintained between development and conservation of natural
resources.
The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra a voluntary organisation wrote a letter to the
Indian Supreme Court which was accepted as a writ petition. The main allegation of the
RLEK was that there were unauthorised and illegal mining operations carried on in
Mussoorie hills and nearby area adversely affecting the ecology of the area and leading to
environmental disturbances. The erratic, irrational and uncontrolled quarrying of limestone
stripped bare the verdant cover of the hills as the green cover was reduced from 70 percent to
10 percent.
Reckless mining operations, careless disposal of the mines debris and random blasting
operations disturbed the natural water system and supply of water for drinking and irrigation
purpose also went down. Transportation and resultant vibrations caused damage to the green
cover and the water sources.
Decision: Court emphasized that industrial development was necessary for economic growth
of the country. If, however, industrial growth was sought to be achieved by hazard and
reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities
like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be no real
economic growth and no real prosperity. It was necessary to strike a proper balance.
Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these facts into
consideration and also provide for adequate safeguards. Renewal of lease be denied and their
operations be stopped.
The court also awarded Rs. 10000/- to the Kendra for the cost of the proceedings and the
State of U.P. was asked to pay this amount within one month.
3. Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (Bhopal Gas Leakage Disaster Case)
[1991 4 SCC 584]
On the night of December 2, 1984, chemical, methyl isocyanate (MIC) spilt out from Union
Carbide India Ltd.’s (UCIL’s) pesticide factory turned the city of Bhopal into a colossal gas
chamber. It was India's first major industrial disaster. At least 30 tonnes of methyl isocyanate
gas killed more than 15,000 people and affected over 6,00,000 workers. Bhopal gas tragedy is
known as world's worst industrial disaster.
The gas spread within the radius of eight kilometers. The gas caused coughing, breathlessness,
stomach pain, burning in the respiratory tract. By the morning, thousands of people had died.
Many people who survived this disaster, suffered from various diseases for the rest of their
lives. People still suffer from cancer, tuberculosis, gynecological disorders etc. as the result
of the inhalation of the gas.
Decision :
1. The Union of India filed the case before the District and Sessions Court of Bhopal on 5th
September 1986 against the UCC and claimed Rs. 3900 crores by way of compensation. The
court made an interim order on 17th December 1987 to deposit Rs. 350 crores within a period
of two months.
2. The UCC went in appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court against this interim order. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced this amount of interim order from Rs.350 crores to Rs
250 crores. The UCC was not satisfied with this order and therefore went in appeal to the
Indian Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court pronounced its judgement on 14th February 1989 and ordered for the
deposit of $ 470 million, which included fine, punitive damage also and the deposition of this
amount would also bring an end to all other pending cases relating to this disaster. Thus, this
disaster pointed out that laws prevalent at the time of happening of this event were not
sufficiently effective to deal with such disaster involving multinationals. It also led to the
passing of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991 etc. This incident led to the evolution of the principle of Absolute Liability
discussed first in Oleum Gas Leakage case and applied in this case as well. The
principle of absolute liability states that when an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry and if any damage leads to an account of such activity
then the enterprise is completely liable to compensate such damage, further the
enterprise cannot claim that it took reasonable care and there was no negligence on its
part i.e. the exceptions available in strict liability won’t apply.
4. Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India [1996 5 SCC 212]
- Application of Polluter Pays Principle
Facts of the case :
- An environmentalist organization brought into notice the sufferings and woes of the
inhabitants of a small village called Bichhri in Udaipur district in Rajasthan. The
Respondents operated heavy industry plants there, producing chemicals such as oleum (a
concentrate form of sulphuric acid), single super phosphate and the highly toxic "H" acid (the
manufacture of which is banned in western countries).
- Respondents operated these plants without permits which caused serious pollution of the
environment. Toxic waste water was untreated and left to be absorbed into the earth causing
aquafiers and the subterranean supply of water to be polluted. The soil also became polluted
and unfit for cultivation. Several people in nearby villages were alleged to have contracted
diseases due to the pollution, some of whom had died. From 1989- 1992, the Court issued
orders to respondents, directing them to, among other things, control and store the sludge.
These orders were largely ignored.
Decision : The Court also endorsed the polluter pays principle and principle of absolute
liability , under which the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage lie with those
who cause the pollution. The court emphasized that the respondents generated this waste
without the requisite clearances/consents/license, did not install appropriate treatment
equipment, did not carry out the Court’s orders, and had persisted in an illegal course of
activity.
- Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 empowered the Central
Government to take necessary measures to protect the environment. Accordingly, the Central
Government would determine the amount of money needed to carry out remedial measures in
this case. Thus, applying the “Polluter Pays” principle, respondents were held liable to pay
to improve and restore the environment in this area. Respondents were "rogue
industries", and hence all their plants and factories in Bichhri village were ordered to
be closed. Villagers could institute suits in the appropriate civil courts to claim damages from
respondents. The court held that the Central Government should consider treating chemical
industries separately from other industries, and closely monitoring them to ensure they did
not pollute the environment.
- Establishing environmental courts was a good suggestion and would ensure that
environmental matters were given the constant and proper consideration they deserved.
- Respondents were further ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs of this litigation to the
petitioner and the said sum was ordered to be deposited in the court within two weeks from
the date of the order.
5. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (“Oleum Gas Leakage or Shriram Food and Fertilizer
Case”) [1987 1 SCC 395]
Facts of the case:
1) Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industry (SFFI) was a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. in
Delhi. SFFI had several units and was engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine,
hydrochloric acid, vanaspati, soap, sodium sulphate, etc. The plant in question producing
caustic and chlorine was commissioned in 1949. On 4th December 1985, a major leakage
oleum gas took place from one of the units of SFFI.
2) This leakage affected large number of persons - both amongst the workmen and the public.
Moreover, an advocate practising in the Tis-Hazari courts died on account of inhalation of the
oleum gas. The leakage occurred due to the bursting of a tank containing oleum gas as a
result of the collapse of the structure on which it was mounted.
3) District Magistrate, on 6th December, 1985 ordered the closure of the industry under
Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and removal of the chemical gases to some
safe place.
4) A writ petition was filed before SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution on 7th December,
1985. The Court on 13th December, 1985 by an order allowed the petitioner to appoint a
committee to visit the caustic chlorine plant to ascertain whether the recommendations of the
Manmohan Committee (constiuted in March 1985) were properly implemented or not and
whether the claims for compensation cases are disposed off by appointing Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate. Accordingly petitioner appointed Dr. G. D. Agarwal Committee which pointed
out various inadequacies in the plant and expressed that the plant be shifted from its present
location. The court appointed another committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Nilay
Chowdhary with two members to inspect the plant in question and submit its report on 3
points - 1) permisssion of recommencement of operations, 2) measures to be adopted against
such hazard and air and water pollution, 3) required safety devices not installed in the plant.
This committee agreed with Manmohan Committee and made a report setting out 14
recommendations required to be complied in order to minimise the hazards due to possible
chlorine leakage.
5) Delhi Legal Aid and Advise Board and Delhi Bar Association filed applications for award
of compensation to the affected persons.
Judgment by Constitutional Bench of court headed by Bhagwati J.
1) Plant was set up 35 years ago, sizable population resides in that area - it was risk and
hazard to large number of people - Therefore recommendations made by the Manmohan
Singh Committee and Dr. Nilay Chowdhary Committee must be implemented in toto to avoid
possible future risk before the Shriram industry is permitted to restart.
2) The industry was also ordered to obtain “consent order” from the CPCB under Section 25,
Water Act, 1974 and under Section 21, Air Act, 1981.
3) Court observed that for ascertaining the measure of liability of an enterprise engaged
in hazardous or inherently dangerous substances, the rule of strict liability laid down in
Rylands v. Fletcher in 1860 is not applicable to present-day circumstances. New
principle of absolute liability was evolved in this case. Thus, the enterprise engaged in
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health
and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm
results from anyone on account of such activities because the enterprise alone has the
resource to discover and guard against the potential hazards. Such a liability does not
have any exception unlike strict liability.
4) Compensation - Delhi administration was directed to provide funds to Delhi Legal Aid and
Advice Board for the purpose of filing and prosecuting such compensation cases and Delhi
High Court was directed to nominate one or more judges to try such actions for compensation
expeditiously.
6. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (“Ganga Pollution case” Calcutta and Kanpur
Tanneries pollution case ) [AIR 1998 SC 1115]
Introduction - This case is related to S. 16 and 17 of Water Act, 1974 and S. 3 and 5 of
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and it also discussed various provisions of the U.P.
Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 relating to the duties of municipalities.
Facts of the case:
1) Mr. M.C. Mehta an advocate of SC and social activist filed the writ petition in the form of
PIL under Art. 32 before the SC. The petition demanded for the issuance of writ of
mandamus to the respondents including the State of U.P. and municipal corporations and
councils in the State of U.P. to restrain them from letting out trade effluents into the river
Ganga. The case involved 89 named respondents.
2) Writ mentioned that industries mostly tanneries located on the banks of river and
populated areas of Kanpur and Calcutta were discharging trade effluents in the river Ganga.
These trade effluents were highly toxic compared with domestic sewage water which was
also discharged into the river. Consequently the river water had become highly noxious as the
tanneries and 9 nallas were discharging trade effluents and domestic sewage into the river.
3) At other places, half burnt bodies and other noxious materials were also thrown into the
river.
4) Due to failure of authorities to obey statutory duties for several years, Ganga river could
no longer be used people for drinking or bathing.
5) Mr. Mehta read an article “Fire in Ganga” which was on account of toxicity of river water,
on that basis he filed this writ petition as quick steps to protect the cleanliness of river Ganga
were need of the hour as this river is life sustainer of a large part of northern India.
Contentions of Respondents:
Tanneries of Kanpur represented that due to lack of physical facilities, technical know-how
and funds, it was not possible to install such costly machineries for sewage treatment and if
industries are ordered to be closed then there will be issues of unemployment of many people
and loss of revenue to government.
Judgment of the court - directions given
1) Court on the basis of Art. 48A, 51-A (g) and proclamation adopted by India to protect
environment in Stockholm Conference, 1972, comprehensive provisions of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 emphasized that State Pollution Control
Boards (SPCB) had not taken effective steps to prevent the discharge of effluents into the
river.
2) It pointed out that S. 16 and 17 of Water Act lay down the functions of Central and State
Boards respectively which includes the function of laying down standards for treatment of
sewage and trade effluents to be discharged in a stream or well, but no effective steps were
taken by State Boards. SC also quoted S. 24 prohibiting the use of stream or well for disposal
of poisonous and polluting substances and S. 43 dealing with punishment of defaulting
person.
3) Court observed that the fact that the industrial effluents were discharded into municipal
sewer cannot absolve the industries from being proceeded against as per the law. Defence of
financial incapacity to instal effluent treatment machinery, unemployment, loss of revenue to
government are irrelevant and of no value looking to the public health and environment and
ecology needs to be improved in any case.
4) Court ordered that tanneries which did not appear before the court should stop functioning
and before restarting must install pre-treatment plants for trade effluents. Further, industries
which appeared before the court were allowed to install pre-treatment plants within 6 months
(31st March 1988) as approved by State Board.
5) Central Government and UP Pollution Control Board and District Magistrate, Kanpur were
directed to enforce the orders of the court faithfully
Principles laid down
1. Under Art. 32 of Indian Constitution, PIL can be filed like this and court shall entertain
pollution cases.
2. Discharging noxious, poisonous substances into the river must be stopped completely as
water is the elixir of life and river valleys are cradles of civilization.
3. Cost of checking pollution is irrelevant looking to the widespread ramifications of the
water-borne diseases.
4. Statutory provisions must be strictly enforced and authorities concerned must implement
them faithfully.
7. M. C. Mehta v. Kamalnath , (1997) 1 SCC 388
This case is related to the “public trust doctrine” and its application in Indian
environmental cases. It is a landmark case in Indian environmental law.
Facts of the case:
1) Span Motels Private Limited in which family of Indian politician Kamal Nath has direct
links had floated another ambitious venture, Span Club. The club was built after encroaching
upon 27.12 bighas of land, including substantial forestland in 1990. The land was later
regularised and leased out to company on 11th April, 1994.
2) The regularisation was done when Shri Kamal Nath was Minister of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) of UOI vide letter Dt. 24th November, 1993 addressed to the Secretary,
Forest, Himachal Pradesh Government, Shimla conveying its prior approval in terms of S. 2,
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for leasing to the motel 27 bighas and 12 biswas of forest
land adjoining to the land already on lease with the motel.
3) The encroachment by the Span Club led to the swelling of the river Beas and the swollen
river changed its course and engulfed the Span Club and the adjoining lawns washing it away.
Under such circumstances the river stream changed its course remaining within the valley but
swinging from one bank to the other. For almost five months the Span Resorts Management
used bull-dozers and earth-movers to turn the course of river Beas for a second time. The
heavy earth-mover had been used to block the flow of the river just 500 metres upstream. The
bull dozers were creating a new channel to divert the river to at least one kilometre
downstream .
4) Effects caused by such activities of Span Motel as pleaded by petitioner - 1) It has caused
widespread erosion of land resulting in the destruction of vegetation cover of the area and
habitat of animals and birds. 2) Large forest area and crop land submerged in the river water.
It was pleaded that the area being ecologically fragile and full of scenic beauty should not
have been permitted to be converted into private ownership of Span Club and for commercial
gains.
Judgment- Public Trust Doctrine explained and applied:
- The honourable J. Kuldeep Singh observed that our legal system based on English law
includes public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural
resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the
beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The
State as a trustee is under the legal duty to protect natural resources which cannot be
converted into private ownership like in this case.
- The court also traced the history of the doctrine and found its root in Roman and English
Law and distinguished between English and American law.
- Court by applying this doctrine concluded that the lease granted by the govennment was
virtually in breach of the trust held by the government and they must be held responsible to
reverse the loss caused to the ecology in light of “polluter pays” and “pecautionary” principle
explained in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action case and Vellore case as part of
sustainable development.
- Directions:
1) Public trust doctrine is the part of the law of the land.
2) The prior approval granted by Indian Government, MoEF by letter Dt. 24/11/1993 is
quashed and the lease deed Dt. 11/04/1994 in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of the area
in favour of motel is cancelled and set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Govt. shall take over the
area and restore it to its original natural conditions.
3) The Court after considering the report of NEERI regarding the damage caused to the
ecology of the area imposed “exemplary fine” of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Span Motels Pvt. Ltd.
keeping in view their undertaking to bear a fair share of “the project cost of ecological
restoration” which would be borne by them in addition to aforesaid liability for exemplary
damages.
8. L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2
Headnote : Sanitation problem in Jaipur brought forth - hazardous to public health -
held that State’s duty to take immediate steps to remove dirt, filth etc. from the city
within six months
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner asking the Court to issue directions to the State to
perform its obligatory duties, in the matter of sanitation of Jaipur City. The petitioner invoked
fundamental rights and the directives principles of State policy and brought to the fore the
acute sanitation problem in Jaipur which, it claimed as hazardous to the life of the citizens of
Jaipur.
Judgment:
1. The Court observed that maintenance of health, preservation of sanitation and environment
falls within the purview of Art. 21 of the Constitution as it adversely affect the life of the
citizen and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizen because of the
hazards created of unchecked filth and land pollution.
2. As right and duty co-exists it can be said that Article 51A creates the right in favour of the
citizen to move to the Court to see that the State performs its duties faithfully and the
obligatory and primary duties are performed in accordance with the law of land. Accordingly,
it provides particularly under Clause (g) that the State and its instrumentalities and agencies
should strive to protect and prove the natural environment. Under Clause (j) it has been
further provided that the State should (strive towards) collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to the higher levels of endeavour and achievement.
3. The Court held that the Municipality had a statutory duty to remove the dirt, filth etc from
the city within a period of six months and clear the city of Jaipur from the date of this
judgment. A committee was constituted to inspect the implementation of the judgment.
3. Court further observed that municipality cannot say that because of the paucity of fund or
because of paucity of staff they are not in a position to perform the primary duties. If law is
enacted, it must be implemented at any cost without any excuse especially when it concerns
with primary duties like this.
9. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. [AIR 1987 SC 374]
Headnote: (indian kanoon)
Indian Forest Act, 1927--ss. 4 and 20--Jungle lands notified and declared reserved
forest--Possession of the Adivasis--Whether legal and valid.
Environmental Law:
Forests--National Asset--Important for ecological balance and economy--Schemes to
generate electricity equally important and cannot be deferred.
Legal Aid
Jungle land habitated and cultivated by Adivasis--declared reserved forest--
Dispossession sought--Provision of legal aid to protect their rights.
Facts of the case :
1. Consequent upon the State Government declaring a part of the jungle lands in two tehsils
of the District of Mirzapur as reserved forest under s.20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and
notifying other areas under s.4 of the Act for final declaration as reserved forests, the forest
officers started interfering with the operations of the Adivasis living for generations in those
areas. Criminal cases for encroachments as also other forest offences were registered against
them and systematic attempts were made to obstruct their free movement, and even steps
were taken under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972
for throwing them out of the villages raised by them, and in existence for quite some time.
Their attempts to cultivate the lands around these villages, converted by them into
cultivable fields and on which they had been raising crops for food, were also resisted.
2. On the basis of a letter received from the petitioner-Ashram, a writ petition under Art. 32
of the Constitution was registered by this Court with regard to the claims of these Adivasis
to land and related rights.
Judgment :
1) By its order dated August 22, 1983 the Court directed the claims of Adivasis or tribals, to
be in possession of land and to regularisation of such possession, to be investigated by a
high powered committee with a view to reaching a final decision. The committee has since
identified 433 villages relevant for the present dispute and roughly one lakh eighty two
thousand acres in unauthorised occupation.
 2) On December 15, 1983 the Court directed appointment of a high powered committee
consisting of a retired High Court Judge and two officers for the purpose of
adjudicatingupon the claims of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and backward
classes. The Government by notification dated August 5, 1986 has established a special
agency for survey and record operations.
3) While the matter had been pending before the court the Government decided to locate a
super thermal power plant of the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in a part of
these lands and acquisition proceedings were initiated. NTPC, now a party before the
Court, is seeking dispossession of person in occupation and takeover of lands sought to be
acquired for its propose.
The Court gave the following directions:
1. The lands which have already been declared as re-served forest under s. 20 of the
Act not to form part of the writ petition.
2. Forest Officers to demarcate and identify the lands notified under s.4 of the Act
within six weeks from 1st December, 1986. The matter to be widely publicised. Claims as
contemplated under s.6(c) of the Act to be received within three months from 15th January,
1987.
3. Adequate number of record officers to be appointed by December 31, 1986. Five
Additional District Judges to be located at five notified places in the area and to exercise
the powers of the Appellate Authority as provided under s.17 of the Act. (Appeal from order
under S. 11, 12, 14 and 16 related to claims, rights to forest produce, commutation of rights)
4. When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible, the State Government
should honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same.
5. Assistance by way of legal aid to be provided to the persons seeking to raise claims
and for facilitating information for lodging of claims and processing them both at the
original as also the appellate stage. State Government to provide the necessary funds.
6. The land sought to be acquired by the NTPC to be free from the ban of dispossession.
However, provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be complied with.
7. A Board of Commissioners to supervise the operations and oversee the implementation
of the directions.
Forests are a much wanted national asset. On account of the depletion thereof ecology has
been disturbed; climate has undergone a major change and rains have become scanty.These
have long-term adverse effects on national economy as also on the living process. At the
same time, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that for industrial growth as also for
provision of improved living facilities there is great demand in this country for energy such
as electricity. A scheme to generate electricity, therefore, is equally of national importance
and cannot be deferred.

10. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India. [(2000) 10 SCC 664]

Facts of the case
1) Sardar Sarovar Dam was constructed on Narmada river that run in four States (Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan) in India starting in 1987.
2) In April 1994, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a writ petition inter alia praying that the
Union of India and other respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the
construction of the dam and they should be ordered to open the aforesaid sluices.
3) Narmada Bachao Andolan cited displacement and rehabilitation problem that the project
would cause. It called for further study as well as postponement of construction pending
completion of such study.
4) It has also argued for reduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of
submergence and the consequent displacement.
Narmada Bachao Andolan is a landmark case in the inter-state water disputes matter
and deals with the lives of the affected persons who had lost their occupation.
4) The construction of the dam at the river Narmada is highly significant as Narmada is the
fifth largest river in India. Narmada is the largest west flowing river in India. It flows
through the state of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Thus the Narmada could be
used for multiple purposes i.e. generation of hydroelectricity, providing fresh water to the
citizens as mandated by article 21 of the Indian constitution, providing water through canals
to the arid regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
5) Thus, there was controversy concerning the environment clearance given by the prime
minister after there was a difference of opinion between the ministry of water resources and
the ministry of environment and forest. The environmental clearance was given by the
Central government in 1987, much before the 1994 notification.
6) Even the dispute regarding raising the height of the dam was also settled by an award
given in 1978.
Thereafter, the construction was taken up in 1987.
The writ was filed to challenge the construction of and raising the height of the dam in 1994.
Judgment:
SC weighing pros and cons of entire matter held that when projects are undertaken and
hundreds and crores of public money are spent, individuals and organisations
petitioning in the garb of public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be entertained. As the
project commenced long back, it does not require EIA as required by the above
notification.

11. A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu [1999 2 SCC 718] and A. P.
Pollution Control Board (II) v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu [2001 2 SCC 62]
Implementation of Precautionary principle
Facts of the case :
1) M/s. Surana Oils and Derivatives (India) Ltd., the respondent companies - incorporated in
January 1995 for the production of B.S.S. Castor Oil derivations - applied for the consent for
establishment of industry to the Commissioner of Industries, who sent the application to the
Andhra Pradesh Government, which issued license to company subject to fulfillment of
various conditions including condition to obtain certificate from State Pollution Control
Board (SPCB) to the effect that measures envisaged for pollution control and the equipment
proposed to be installed met their requirements.
2) The application Dt. 07/04/1997 seeking consent and clearance to set up industry under
section 25 of Water Act, 1974 was rejected by the A. P. Pollution Control Board since the
unit was a polluting industry and fell under “red” category and the proposed site was within
10 Km radius of two lakes - Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar- from where drinking water
was supplied to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
3) Aggrieved by the above letter of rejection, respondent company appealed under Section 28
of Water Act, 1974 to the appellate authority constituted by the State Government and this
appellate authority allowed the appeal of the company by an order Dt. 5/1/1998 and directed
A.P. Pollution control Board to give its consent for establishment of factory on such
conditions which it deemed fit. Respondent Company applied to the High Court for directing
A. P. Pollution Control Board to give its consent and High Court issued necessary directions
to issue NOC to the company.
4) A. P. Pollution Control Board went appeal under Art. 136 to SC against the order of HC.
Decision of Supreme Court
- Uncertainty nature of scientific opinion - The court came to the conclusion that “in the
environmental field, the uncertainty of scientific opinions has created serious problems for
the courts.” Moreover there are inadequacy of science result and they may not be accurate as
they are based on animal testing and not human testing and many other reasons. This has led
to evolution of new legal theories like “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays” principle
as laid down in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and principle of absolute
liability as laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leakage Case) and rules
of evidence like special concept of onus of proof on the developer or industrialist who is
proposing to alter the status quo are necessary for sustainable development and are part of the
law of the land as inferred from Art. 47, 48-A, 51-G of Indian Constitution and Water Act
and Environment Protection Act . The matter was referred for investigation on scientific
and technical aspects to the appellate authority constituted under National
Environment Appellate Authority (NEEA) Act, 1997 comprising of retired judge and
members having technical expertise in environmental matters and such authority was
requested to give its opinion withing 3 months from the date of order.
- This led to the decision in the second case. Such NEAA affirmed that the industry in
question was hazardous and found that solid and liquid effluents could reach the lakes
through seepage and hence factory could not be located in the catchment area because run-off
due to rain would carry the hazardous material along the surface through seepage. The Court
observed accordingly in light of these reports and applied precautionary principle and
held that it was certainly not a fit case for directing grant of NOC by PCB . Further
Board could not be directed to suggest safeguards as there was every likelihood that the
safeguards could fail either due to accident as stated in the report or due to human
error and thus the judgment of Appellate Authority and HC were set aside and the
order of the Appellant Board refusing permission to the industry under S. 25 of Water
Act was restored.