ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

CASE BREFING
Submitted by – Shyamli Shukla

Introduction:
Modern environmental jurisprudence in India is essentially developed through the legislative awakening
post Bhopal gas tragedy, adoption of Stockholm and Rio Conventions by India and creative interpretation
of Article 21 by the Indian judiciary. Incorporation of right to pollution free environment or clean
environment in right to life in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is an important facet of modern
environmental jurisprudence in India. It is believed that right to clean environment belongs to third
generation of human rights, based on the principle of solidarity. Therefore cooperation is needed at all
levels to secure effectively right to clean environment to all. Right to clean environment has become a
part of right to life and is accepted as a human right and also a fundamental right.

Interestingly the Constitution of India in its original form was environmentally myopic. But judicial
activism and foresight of the Apex Court and different High Courts has given a new vision and dimension
to environmental protection through fundamental rights. 1

1. Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action Etc Vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc on 13
February, 19962
 Bench - Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy, Justice B.N Kirpal

Facts:-
1. In this case writ petition was filed up by an environmental organization named Indian Council for
Environment Legal Action.

2. That environment organization brought up subject matter to bring light on the woes of people living in
a area which is captured by the chemical industries plants in a village named Bichhri village .

3. It is a small village located in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. Northern part of this village is captive with
the chemical industrial plants like Hindustan Zinc Limited and many other. This case highlights the greed
among the industrialists for the maximization of their profits by promotingindustrialization and export
earnings.

4. However, in the year 1987 when the fourth respondent that is Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited
started producing concentrated form of sulphuric acid what is known as Oleum along with the single
1
Prof. Dr. G. P. Verma, ‘Human Right to Pollution-free, clean and healthy Environment – Constitutional
Perspectives’, in Prof. Satish C. Shastri edi. Human Rights Development and Environmental Law: An Anthology’, 1st
edn. Bharat Law Publications (2007), p. 159
2
1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
super phosphate which is hazardous for the people living in that particular area. Afterwards another
respondent TataSilver Chemicals also started with the production of “h” acid give me the same complex.
Acid h was produced for the export transactions.

5. Along with this Jyoti chemical is another complex established which particularly produces acids”H”
besides many other chemicals. Many Other industries were setup to produce fertilizers and other
chemicals which is directly or indirectly creates pollution.

6. These all created the production of toxic effluents in that particular area which is not properly treated
by the industries. Be it water,be it air and everything which comes into the contact of these industries
were being  poisoned .

According to the report submitted , there were about 2500 tonnes of highly toxic sludge was produced
and on the other hand 375 tonnes of H” acid were being

8. And all the waste material thrown into the open field of village area without being treated properly.

9. These toxic chemicals released out polluted the ground and polluted the water at ground level. Over the
time, all the wells and other streams turned black and polluted by these toxic chemicals. The water in the
wells used for drinking, irrigation and cattle feeding etc.

10. The fertility of soil also gets affected and gets polluted which is the main source of livelihood for

11. Pollution that was created from the toxic chemicals also result into various of diseases, disasters
economics death in the village area and in the nearby areas.

12. The Parliament also worried about the sudden degradation of mother earth and the ministers also
insured that some reasonable action should be taken but nothing had happened.

13. As a result, the villagers took an action and rose up a virtual revolt imposition of Section 144 of CPC
by the District Magistrate of that area for the closure of these industries.

Issues raised in the case:-

 Whether industry which are engaged in production of hazardous chemicals taken some measures
to safeguard the environment?
 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the amount necessary to carry out the appropriate
remedial action?

Judgement-
The Supreme Court gave its verdict on the long impending judgment on the Bichhri case, Writ Petition
No. 967 of 1989. The court held that it had the power to intervene to protect the constitutionally
guaranteed right to life by ordering the closure of the plants and by directing the government to determine
and recover the cost of remedial measures from the owners of the plants. The court also recommended the
strengthening of environmental protection machinery. In effecting the polluter pays principle, the Court
looked to the European Community’s methods regarding polluting entities, in particular the European
Community Treaty. It imposed a fine of Rs 38.385 crores on Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd (HACL)
with compound interest since 1997 for the remediation of over 350 hectares of land in Bichhri. The Court
also slapped a fine of Rs 10 Lakh on HACL for keeping the litigation alive for almost 15 years even
though the court had disposed the petition in 1997, imposing Polluter Pays Principle according to which
polluter must pay for the damage done to the human beings and environment.

2. Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 19893

Background-
Union Carbide (India) Limited (UCIL), which was a subsidiary of the New York based Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) owned a plant in Bhopal to manufacture pesticides. A highly toxic gas, Methyl
Isocyanate (MIC) was used in the process and there was a massive leak from the storage tank on the night
between 2nd and 3rd December 1984, which resulted in death of approximately 3000 people and injuries
to thousands of others.

The tragedy was followed by large number of suits being filed against the companies in both India and
the United States. With regard to this, the Government took a major step by enacting the Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 with the object to “confer powers on the Central
Government to assure that claims arising out of, or connected with, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster are
dealt with speedily, effectively, equitably and to the best advantage of the claimants and for matters
incidental thereto.”[1] Section 3 of the Act empowered the Central Government to file suits on behalf of
the victims exclusively, hence, taking away the rights of affected to file suits on their own. Though it was
specifically mentioned that in case of suits that were already filed before the enactment of the aforesaid
Act, the Central Government shall represent the victims or act in addition to them with the permission of
the Court. Hence the writ.

Issues:

The following core issues that came up, were,

1) Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14,
19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?

2) Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice?

2.1) Whether being a joint tort feasor, the Union on India had any locus standi to compromise on behalf
of the victims as it itself had permitted the establishment of such factories without necessary safeguards?

2.2) Whether or not the victims and their legal heirs were given opportunity to be heard?

2.3) Whether or not, due to conflict on interests, the Central Government was acting as a judge in its own
cause?

3
AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597
3) Whether or not the Central Government is legislatively competent to destroy/ demand the citizens to
surrender their rights in guise of giving aid?

JUDGEMENT –
The Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act, 1985, observed that
the citizen’s right to pollution-free environment is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.