ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In early 1984, M.C. Mehta, a public interest attorney, visited the Taj
Mahal for the first time. He saw that the famed monument's marble
had turned yellow and was pitted as a result of pollutants from
nearby industries. This spurred Mehta to file his first environmental
case in the Supreme Court of India.
The following year, Mehta learned that the Ganges River,
considered to be the holiest river in India and used by millions of
people every day for bathing and drinking water, caught fire due to
industrial effluents in the river.
Once again Mehta filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the
polluting factories and the scope of the case was broadened to
include all the industries and municipalities in the river basin.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
For years, every Friday, a courtroom has been set aside just for
Mehta's cases. In 1993, after a decade of court battles and threats
from factory owners, the Supreme Court ordered 212 small
factories surrounding the Taj Mahal to close because they had not
installed pollution control devices. Another 300 factories were put
on notice to do the same.
While the Ganges cases continued to be heard every week, 5,000
factories along the river were directed to install pollution control
devices and 300 factories were closed. Approximately 250 towns
and cities in the Ganges Basin have been ordered to set up
sewage treatment plants.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
Mehta has won additional precedent-setting suits against industries
which generate hazardous waste and succeeded in obtaining a
court order to make lead-free gasoline available. He has also been
working to ban intensive shrimp farming and other damaging
activities along India's 7,000 kilometres coast. Mehta has
succeeded in getting new environmental policies initiated and has
brought environmental protection into India's constitutional
framework.
He has almost single handily obtained about 40 landmark
judgements and numerous orders from the Supreme Court against
polluters, a record that may be un-equaled by any other
environmental lawyer in the world.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
1. TAJ MAHAL CASE
Taj Mahal, one of the wonders of the world and the pride of India
was facing serious threat from pollution caused by Mathura
Refinery, iron foundries, glass and other chemical industries. As a
result of very high toxic emissions from these industries, the Taj
Mahal and 255 other historic monuments within the Taj trapezium
were facing serious threat because of acid rain. The Petition was
filed in the year 1984. The Supreme Court of India delivered a
historic Judgment in December 1996. The apex Court gave various
directions including banning the use of coal and coke and directing
the industries to switch over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
2. GANGA POLLUTION CASE
Three landmark judgments and a number of Orders against
polluting industries numbering more than fifty thousand in the
Ganga basin passed from time to time. A substantial success has
been achieved by way of creating awareness and controlling
pollution in the river Ganges.

In this case, apart from industries, more than 250 towns and cities
have been ordered to put sewage treatment plants. Six hundred
tanneries operating in highly congested residential area of Kolkata
have been shifted out of the City and relocated in a planned Leather
Complex in the State of West Bengal.

A large number of industries were closed down by the Court and

were allowed to reopen only after these industries set up effluent
treatment plants and controlled pollution. As a result of these
directions millions of people have been saved from the effects of air
and water pollution in Ganga basin covering 8 states in India.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
3. RELOCATION OF 90000 POLLUTING INDUSTRIES OPERATING IN DELHI:

in Delhi. Despite their ban, these industries continued to operate

in Delhi in violation of the Master Plan and Environmental laws.
Seeing the defiant attitude of the industries a petition was filed in
the Supreme Court. In this case, in 1996 the apex Court ordered the
closure of major polluting and hazardous industries from Delhi and
their relocation in the neighbouring states. More than 1300 major
polluting and hazardous industries were closed down in Delhi.

Industries numbering more than 90,000 operating in

nonconforming areas in Delhi had also been asked to close down
their operations and shift them to conforming areas. Hundreds of
industries operating in conformity with the master plan in 28
industrial areas were ordered to set up Common Effluent Treatment
Plants at 15 places to control pollution.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
4. VEHICULAR POLLUTION CASE:
Against vehicular pollution in India the Supreme Court delivered a
landmark judgment in 1992. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court was
appointed along with three members to recommend measures for the
nationwide control of vehicular pollution. Orders for providing Lead free
petrol in the country and for the use of natural gas and other mode of fuels
for use in the vehicles in India have been passed and carried out. Lead-
free petrol had been introduced in the four metropolitan cities from April
1995; all new cars registered from April 1995 onwards have been fitted
with catalytic convertors; COG outlets have been set up to provide CNG as
a clean fuel in Delhi and other cities in India apart from Euro 2 norms. As a
result of this case, Delhi has become the first city in the world to have
complete public transportation running on CNG.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
5. DELHI SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CASE:

About 10 million people living in Delhi and millions of

people living along the banks of river Yamuna were
exposed to health hazards from water contamination
due to total absence of sewage treatment plant in many
areas of Delhi.

A time bound programme was given by the Supreme

Court to the Delhi Municipal Corporation for setting up
of treatment plant in 16 different localities in this case.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
6. CHILD LABOUR CASE
By raising issue of exploitation of child labour in Sivakasi (Tamil
Nadu) match and fireworks factories, more than one million children
working in hazardous industries in Tamil Nadu and other States in
India were benefited. Thus ambit of the case was widened to
include child labour in the whole country.

The Supreme Court directed all the States to identify children

forced into labour and come out with schemes for their
rehabilitation. Child labour in hazardous industries has been
banned. In another case, 194 children illegally detained in different
jails in Orissa were released.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
7. AQUACULTURE CASE:
Big industrial houses and multinationals had started commercial prawn farming in a
big way in the coastal states of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in a totally
unplanned, unscientific and unscrupulous manner, and in the process, destroyed
large areas of rich fertile lands; caused salinity in the ground water, uprooted small
farmers and destroyed the livelihood of lakhs of fishermen. A writ petition was filed in
the Supreme Court in the name of S. Jagannathan, a Gandhian working for the
weaker sections in the coastal area of Tamil Nadu, praying for the protection of
coastal ecology and lives and livelihood of thousands of small farmers and
fishermen.

The Supreme Court of India banned intensive prawn culture within 500 mtrs of High
Tide Line and within 1000 mtrs of Chilka Lake and Pullicat Lake. An Authority under
the Chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court Judge was ordered to to be
constituted by the Central Govt. under Environment Protection Act 1986 to
implement the principles of 'Precautionary Principle' and the 'Polluter Pays Principle'
to assess the loss to ecology and recover the cost of eco-restoration and amount of
compensation from the polluters.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
7. AQUACULTURE CASE:
Succeeded in getting orders from the Court that all over the country
the cinema theaters will exhibit two slides free of cost on
environment in each show failing which their licenses will be
cancelled, a minimum 5 to 7 minutes will be given by the television
network in the country to televise programmes on environment
apart from giving a regular weekly programme on environment.

Environment has become a compulsory subject up to 12th standard

from academic session 1992 and University Grants Commission
will also introduce this subject in higher classes in different
Universities.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
8. ENVIRONMENT AWARENESS & EDUCATION CASE:
Succeeded in getting orders from the Court that all over the country
the cinema theaters will exhibit two slides free of cost on
environment in each show failing which their licenses will be
cancelled, a minimum 5 to 7 minutes will be given by the television
network in the country to televise programmes on environment
apart from giving a regular weekly programme on environment.

Environment has become a compulsory subject up to 12th standard

from academic session 1992 and University Grants Commission
will also introduce this subject in higher classes in different
Universities.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
9. DUST POLLUTION CASE:
In a historic case, 212 stone crushers were shifted out
of Delhi to a 'Crushing Zone' set up in Haryana by an
order of the Supreme Court on May 15th, 1992.
Emission of more than 1500 tons of dust emitted daily in
the atmosphere has been eliminated.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
10. KAMAL NATH CASE:
In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span motel, owned by the family
members of Shri Kamal Nath, Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt.
of India diverted the Course of river Beas to beautify the motel and also
encroached upon some forest land.

The apex court ordered the management of the Span motel to hand over
forest land to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and remove all sorts of
encroachments. The Court delivered a land mark judgment and
established principle of exemplary damages for the first time in India. The
Court said that polluter must pay to reverse the damage caused by his act
and imposed a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs (Rs 10,00,000) on the Span motel as
exemplary damages. The Supreme Court of India recognized Polluter Pays
Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
11. COASTAL AREAS CASE :
Despite Coastal Zone Regulation Notification of February 1991,
none of the coastal states had formulated coastal zone
management plan, with the result that haphazard construction and
industrial activity was being permitted anywhere in the coast
leading to large scale damage to coastal ecology and loss of
livelihood to lakhs of fishermen and other indigenous communities
dependent on marine resources.

A writ petition was filed on behalf of Indian Council for Enviro Legal
Action (ICELA) and the Supreme Court delivered a landmark
Judgment banning industrial/ construction activity within 500 mtrs of
the High Tide Line and set a time limit for the coastal states to
formulate coastal management plans.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
12. ANTOP HILL CASE :
In the heart of Mumbai at Antop Hill, a large-scale
chemicals storage center for hazardous chemicals was
being proposed to be set up flouting all environmental
considerations and safety of more than 1.5 million
people living in and around that area.

A case was filed in the Supreme Court and timely action

stopped the authorities/industries from locating such go-
downs.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
13. GAMA CHAMBERS CASE :

Due to filing of case against radiation from a Gamma

Chamber, students and teachers in Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU), Delhi were saved from hazardous
radiation.
 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
M C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
14. GROUND WATER POLLUTION CASE :
In Rajasthan at Bichhri, 5 small chemical industries, owned by a
single owner, were operating without effluent treatment plant. Toxic
effluents from the industries entered the ground water and wells of
14 villages became affected.

After six years of battle in the Court, the Supreme Court delivered
a Judgment in March 1996 directing the closure of the factories and
attached the property of the polluter and directed the Department of
Environment and Forests Govt. of India to recover the cost of eco-
restoration from the industries held responsible for causing damage
to the environment. 1818