PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ARTICLE 19

1. ABHILASH TEXTILES V. THE RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- art. 19

 The Gujarat High Court addressed whether the petitioners had the right to carry on their dyeing and
printing businesses in a manner that caused public nuisance and health hazards.
 The Rajkot Municipal Commissioner had issued notices under Section 376-A of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, to 165 petitioners, directing them to stop discharging
untreated wastewater into public roads and drains, which was causing public health issues.
 The petitioners contended that they had been operating their businesses for 20-30 years, employing
thousands, and that they should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the issuance of
such notices, citing principles of natural justice.
 The court held that while Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution grants the right to carry on any trade or
business, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.
 The court emphasized that no one has the right to carry on a business in a manner that creates a
nuisance or health hazard.
 The court further noted that the petitioners could not claim a fundamental right to carry on their
business without adhering to legal requirements, such as installing water treatment plants.
 The petitioners' argument about the lack of opportunity to be heard was dismissed, as they failed to
show any right to carry on their business in a harmful manner.
 The court ultimately rejected the petitions, suggesting that the Municipal Commissioner might consider
giving the petitioners some additional time to comply with the regulations to avoid unemployment for
the workers, but upheld the notices as lawful and necessary for public health.

2. T.B. IBRAHIM V. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

 the petitioner challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to relocate the starting
and ending points of public vehicles, which resulted in the discontinuation of the petitioner's long-
standing bus stand.
 The Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right for a citizen to conduct business at a
location of their choosing.
 Such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by authorities in the interest of public
convenience.
 The Court emphasized that the Transport Authority, given its local knowledge, is best positioned
to make such decisions, and it is not the role of the Court to replace the Authority's judgment with
its own.

3. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. HIMMATBHAI NARBHERAM RAO

 the Supreme Court considered the right to carry on the business of dealing in carcasses under
the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
 The Court emphasized that a balance must be maintained between the constitutional rights to
property and business (under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g)) and the public interest.
o Restrictions on these rights, particularly when dealing with potentially harmful
activities like handling carcasses, are necessary to safeguard public health.
 The Court ruled that laws requiring the removal and supervised disposal of carcasses are
neither arbitrary nor excessive, even if they result in some financial loss to the business owner.

4. ARJUN GOPAL V. UNION OF INDIA (2017)- art. 21- rt to noise and pollution free environment
 the petitioners sought a complete ban on firecrackers, arguing that their use, particularly during
festivals, caused severe air pollution leading to health issues such as asthma, bronchitis, and
cognitive impairment.
 The Supreme Court acknowledged the health risks posed by firecrackers and the need to protect
the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution, which outweighs commercial interests.
 However, the Court decided that a total ban would not be just.
  It lifted the blanket ban on firecrackers, allowing them to be used at designated places and
directing that license be issued to 50% of businesses involved in their manufacture and sale.
 The Supreme Court revisited the issue of firecracker bans in 2019 and provided a comprehensive
judgment.
 It reviewed previous orders and issued detailed guidelines for the sale and use of firecrackers,
aiming to balance the protection of public health with the regulated continuation of the firecracker
industry.
 The guidelines included restrictions on the timing, location, and type of firecrackers permitted,
with the goal of mitigating the health and environmental impacts while allowing the tradition to
continue in a controlled manner.

5. BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM CASE – article 32, section 4 and 20 of Indian Forest Act 1927, Right
to livelihood
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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 adjudicating upon 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.
 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 it propose.

The Court took several actions:

i. Lands already declared as reserved forests under Section 20 of the Act were excluded from the writ
petition.
ii. Forest officers were directed to demarcate and identify the lands notified under Section 4 of the Act
and to publicize the matter widely.
iii. Adequate record officers were to be appointed. Five Additional District Judges were to be stationed in
the area to act as Appellate Authorities under Section 17 of the Act.
iv. Findings of the Forest Settlement Officer were to be reviewed by the Additional District Judges, even if
no appeal was filed, with their orders treated as final.
v. The State Government was instructed to honor decisions made by the Appellate Authority and
implement them accordingly.
vi. Legal aid was to be provided to assist claimants in lodging and processing their claims at both the
original and appellate stages, with the State Government funding these efforts.
 vii. Land sought by the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for a super thermal power plant was
exempted from the ban on dispossession, provided the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were
followed. Proper records were to be maintained for any subsequent proceedings.
viii. A Board of Commissioners was appointed to supervise and oversee the implementation of the Court's
directions.

6. CHURCH OF GOD V. KKR MAJESTIC COLONY- article 25 and 26 of the constitution

The appellant, a minority institution was in the practice of using musical instruments such as drum set,
triple ganga, guitar etc. The respondent welfare Association filed a Criminal O.P before the High Court of
Madras for a direction to the authorities [Superintendent of Police] to take action on the basis of the letter
issued by the Joint Chief Environment Engineer of the TMPCB. In High Court it was contended by the
Church that the petition was filed with an oblique motive in order to prevent a religious minority institution
from pursuing its religious activities and the Court cannot issue any directions to prevent the church from
practicing its religious beliefs. The High Court balanced the act by giving directions to the religious
minority institution to bring down the noise level by keeping the speakers at a lower level. Aggrieved by the
said order the respondents appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that India is a country with many religious beliefs and faith, numerous
communities or sects of people reside in the same area and locality. Each reside in a sense of harmony and
peace. The Constitution has given religious institutions fundamental right to practice, profess and
propagate. But the Court held that 'undisputedly no religion prescribed that prayers should be performed by
disturbing the peace of other nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of
drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old, infirm
persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day time or other persons
carrying on other activities cannot be permitted'.

The Court while adjudicating the appeal observed that in the present case, the contention with regard to the
right under Art. 25 or Art. 26 of the Constitution which are subject to 'public order, morality and health' are
not required to be dealt with in detail mainly because no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are
required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such
practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their
activities.

7. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. VS. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS- intergenerational
equity- Article 14
 Revolves around the State of Himachal Pradesh imposing sales tax on timber and wood products
sold by Ganesh Wood Products.
 The dispute centers on whether this imposition of sales tax was lawful under the Himachal Pradesh
General Sales Tax Act and relevant constitutional provisions.
 For the first time in Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle of inter-
generational equity. Inter-generational equity is a principle which postulates that every generation
holds Earth in common; therefore the present generation should not abuse the non-renewable
resources so as to deprive the future generation of its benefit.

Issues

1. Legality of Sales Tax: Whether the imposition of sales tax by the State of Himachal Pradesh on timber and
wood products was legally valid.

2. Environmental Considerations: Whether the environmental impact of the timber trade and the state's tax
policy on timber can be assessed in the light of inter- generational equity, which emphasizes sustainability for
future generations.

Observation:
1. The Supreme Court examined the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and its applicability to the timber
trade. The Court affirmed that the imposition of sales tax was within the legal framework and statutory authority
of the State.

2. Although the case primarily dealt with sales tax, it is pertinent to consider the environmental implications of
timber trade. The extraction and sale of timber have significant environmental impacts, including deforestation
and habitat loss, which could affect future generations.

3. For the first time in Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle of inter-generational
equity, which asserts that the current generation has a duty to manage natural resources and the environment in a
way that preserves them for future generations.

4. The Court observed that protecting the environment was not just a matter of current welfare but also a
responsibility towards future generations.

8. INDIAN ENVIRO LEGAL COUNCIL V. UNION OF INDIA: analysis of polluter pays principle

The case involves a writ petition filed by the Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action, focusing on the
severe environmental pollution in Bichhri Village, Udaipur district, Rajasthan. Several chemical industries,
including Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited, TataSilver Chemicals, and Jyoti Chemicals, were accused of
dumping hazardous waste into the village, resulting in contamination of the soil, groundwater, and air, leading
to severe health issues for the residents. Despite warnings and the lack of environmental protection measures,
these industries continued their operations, contributing to the degradation of the environment.

The primary legal issue revolved around whether these industries should be held accountable for the pollution
and required to pay for the necessary corrective actions. The court, applying the Polluter Pays Principle, ruled
that the industries were responsible for the damage and ordered them to pay a significant penalty, including
compound interest and litigation costs, to fund environmental restoration efforts in the affected areas.

Petitioner's Arguments:

The petitioner contended that the chemical industries in Bichhri Village, including Hindustan Agro Chemicals
Limited and others, were discharging hazardous waste, such as highly toxic sludge and ‘H’ acid, which was
inadequately treated and dumped into the environment. This resulted in severe air, soil, and water pollution,
rendering local water sources toxic and damaging soil fertility. The petitioner argued that these industrial
activities posed significant health risks to residents and called for an immediate suspension of operations until
proper waste treatment and corrective measures were implemented.

Respondent's Arguments:

The respondents, including Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited, argued that they had obtained necessary
regulatory approvals, including “No-Objection Certificates” from the Pollution Control Board with specific
conditions for their operations. They contended that they complied with legal requirements and faced challenges
in treating toxic substances due to their resistant nature. The defendants asserted that their waste management
practices were within permissible limits and disputed the claims of inadequate environmental protection and
pollution caused by their activities.

The Polluter Pays Principle was enforced under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and emphasized that
those responsible for causing pollution must bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or
the environment. As a result, following 11 April 1997, the respondent industries were ordered to pay Rs.
37,385,000 INR together with a compound interest of 12 percent per annum until the sum would have been fully
paid or compensated. In addition to this, the respondent industries were mandated to pay the litigation fees for
deliberately wasting the court’s time and resources, as the case was carried on for nearly fifteen years, long after
the Court’s final decision and for all these years the applicants were forced to carry on the case. Taking into
account the sum total of the facts and findings of the case, regarding both the interlocutory applications, the
court ordered the respondent industries to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 INR as costs. This sum of money would
also be used, under the direction of the respective authorities, for performing corrective actions around the
Bichhri village and neighbouring regions within the Udaipur district, Rajasthan, India.