Environmental Pollution And Related Case Laws

By NANDITASHARMA0393 | Views 10741

1 0 0 Blogger1 pocket0 Digg0

The Indian heritage and culture have an intimate relation with conservation and protection of the
environmental.
The Indian state has also enshrined in the constitution which requires both the state and the citizen
to protect and improve the environmental.
The environmental protection act,1986 is one of those acts which extends to the whole of Indian
without any exception.

Public liability and public nuisance

1. M.c. Mehra and Anr.Etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. Etc. 1986 SCR (1)321 discuss the
concept of public liability. This case is also known as oleum leakage case. It is a landmark
judgement in which the principle of Absolute Liability was laid down by the supreme court of
India. The court held that the permission for carrying out any hazardous industry very close
to human habitation could not be given and the industry very close to the human habitation
could not be given and the industry was relocated.

2. The instant case evolved the deep pocket principle. This judgment guided the parliament
to add a new chapter to the factory act, 1948.the public liability act was passed and the
policy for the abatement of pollution was also established.

3. when the directive principles of state policy have clear statutory expression then the court will
not allow municipal government to make fun of the statues by sitting idly. It was decided by
the supreme court in the municipal corporation, Ratlam vs.Vardhichand AIR1980 SC 1622.
The plea of lack of fund will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice. The office in
charge and even the elected representatives will have to face a penal if they violate the
constitutional and other statutory directives

Sustainable development
1. the bench of justices PN Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra in rural litigation and
entitlement Kendra Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 2187 introduced
the concept of sustainable development , an NGO named reek filed a case against limestone
quarrying in the valley in 1987.

2. it was stated that the permanent assets of mankind are not to be exhausted in one
generation. The natural resources should be used with requisite attention and care so that
ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way.

Environmental impact assessment

 1. justice Jeevan reedy in the landmark judgement of Indian council for enviro-legal action vs.
Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1502 held that the financial costs of preventing or remedying
damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution by
adopting the polluter pays principle.

2. the court set a time limit for the coastal states to formulate coastal management plans and
banned industrial or construction activity within 500 meters of the high tide line.

Water pollution
1. The writ petition filed by the activist advocate M.C. Mehra v/s. Union Of India AIR 1988
SCR (2) 583* ordering the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur.
2. In this judgment it was observed that just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages
to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot setup a primary treatment
plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence.

Air pollution
1. The pride of Indian and one of the wonders of the world i.e.., Taj Mahal, was facing threat
due to high toxic emission from Mathura refineries, iron foundries, glass and other chemical
industries. The acid rain was a serious threat to the Taj Mahal 255 other historic monuments
within Taj trapezium.

2. the apex court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union India (Taj trapezium case) Air 1987 delivered its
historic judgment in 1996 giving various directions including banning the use of coal and
cake and directing the industries to compressed natural gas (cng).

Public trust and right to life

1. the bench of justices Kuldip Singh and Sagir ahmed held that the government violated the
doctrine of public trust in M.C.Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors.(1996). The himachal
Pradesh state government had leased out a protected forest area on the bank of river baes
to motels, or commercial purposes.
2. in 1996, the supreme court passed a judgment that would hold state more responsible for
maintaining natural resources.
3. the righ to pollution free environment was declared to be a part of right to life under article 21
of the constitution of India in the case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
(1991).
Right to life is a fundamental right which includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free
water and air for full enjoyment of life

M.C. Mehta v/s Union Of India - (Kanpur Tannerie�s Matter), Air (1987)4 Scc 463
1. This case was a public interest litigation presented before a division bench of the hon�ble
supreme court comprising of E.S. Venkatraramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ.
2. the petitioner M.C. Mehta, who was an active social worker had filed this petition inter alia for
the issue of writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents restraining
them from letting out the trade effluents into the ganga river until the time they put up
necessary treatment plants for treating the trade effluents in order to arrest the pollution of
water on the said river.
3. it was the complaint of the petitioner that neither the government nor the people were giving
adequate attention to stop the pollution f river ganga.
4. it was therefore sought that steps should be taken for the purpose of protecting the
cleanliness of the stream in river ganga.
5. it was contended that the trade effluent-- trade effluent "includes any liquid, gaseous or solid
substance, which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any trade or industry,
other than domestic sewage discharged from tanneries as ten times noxious when
compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any urban area on
its banks and was thus a major source of pollution of river ganga.
6. there was not much dispute on the question that the discharged of the trade effluents from
these tanneries into river ganga had been causing considerable damage to the life of the
people who used the water of river ganga and also to the aquatic life in the river.
7. however, the tanneries of Kanpur had presented that due to lack of physical facilities,
technical knowhow and funds, it had not been possible for most of them to install adequate
treatment facilities.
8. it was pleaded on behalf of a few tanneries that if sometimes was given to them to establish
the pre-treatment plants they would install them. It was however, submitted by all of them
that it would not be possible for them to have the secondary system for treating waste water
as that would involve enormous expenditure which the tanneries themselves would not be
able to meet.
9. In his judgment Venkatramesh, J, held that the State was under a constitutional duty to
project and improve the environment - Environment includes water, air and land and the
interrelationship, which exist among and between water, air and land and human beings,
other living creatures, plants, microorganism and property. State has to safeguard the forests
and wildlife of the country (Article 48-A of the constitution of India).
10. In the opinion of the court, it was fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and have compassion for
all living creatures. (Article 51-A of the constitution of India).
11. the court further decided that it was the duty of the state government, through the state
boards, sections 16 and 117 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act,1974.- and
the central government to use the powers conferred upon them by statute to take all such
measures as it deemed preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution-section 3
and 5 of the environments (protection) act,1986.
12. In cases of this nature, the court could issue appropriate directions if it found that public
nuisance or other wrongful acts affecting or likely to affect the public are being committed
and the statutory authorities, who grievance.-under the laws of the land responsibility for
treatment of the industrial effluents is that of the industry. even the concept of strict liability
could be adhered to in some cases if the circumstances so required.
13. finally it was said that the industries which cannot pay minimum wages to the workers,
cannot be allowed to exists, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plan
couldn�t be permitted to continue to be existence. This is because the adverse effect on the
public at large which likely to ensue by the pollution of the ganga would be immersed would
be outweigh any convenience that may be caused to the management and the Labour
employment by it on account of closure of the tanneries. Thus, the financial capacity of the
tanneries was to be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary
treatment plants.
Conclusion
However, since the environments a complex, variable and extensive system, protecting the
environment is a hard and enduring task.

It is impossible that all the existence pollution problems in the environmental can completely be
resolved in the next decade.

A wonderful and quality environment must be achieved by continuous planning, governmental

policies, efforts of the enterprises and public participation.

It is the responsibility of everyone to protect our environment. Let us fulfill responsibilities I

environmental problems, creation a quality ecological environment sharing wonderful green living
together. Written By:

1. Deepti Dash
2. Nandita Sharma