ASSIGNMENT

SRIRASAD.J

BC0160048

Water Act, 1974

This law provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and the preservation of water
safety or restoration through various guidelines and administrative restrictions. The law was
ratified according to Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution. All state legislature chambers
have passed decisions. One of the main objectives of this law is to implement the purposes
mentioned above by assigning a set of responsibilities, powers and functions to the councils to
prevent and combat water pollution.

The 1974 Water Act aims to prevent and combat water pollution. Under the Water Act of 1974,
pollution control councils were created, responsible for implementing its provisions. An
important provision of the Water Act of 1974 is the preservation and restoration of the health of
our water resources. The law gives regulatory authority to state councils to combat pollution in
order to set and enforce standards for liquid waste in factories. The Central Pollution Control
Committee performs the same functions for the Federation's regions and sets policies and
coordinates the activities of the various state councils. The law gives powers to the Government
Pollution Control Council and the Central Pollution Control Committee to test equipment and
sample for analytical purposes. Sewage or pollutants cannot be discharged into water bodies,
including lakes, and it is the duty of the Government Pollution Control Council to intervene and
stop such activity.

Section 17 clearly lists all the functions of the relevant state councils to tackle water pollution.
Section 25 states that prior approval by the State Council under Section 25 is necessary to
establish any industry, plant, or process that can drain wastewater, sell a stream, well, or sewage,
or on the ground, or put any new outlet in use, change it to drain wastewater, or start In the work
of a new sewage discharge. Section 32 describes the ability to take emergency measures in case
of flow or well contamination. Under the law, the State Council may issue orders to eliminate an
order that, or may cause, pollution. o Treating or reducing pollution, or issuing blocking orders
to people interested in discharging any toxic, harmful or contaminated materials. Articles 24 and
43 refer to the prohibition of the use of current or well to eliminate pollutants and penalties in
violation thereof. The scope of the ruling, no person shall knowingly cause or allow any toxic,
harmful or contaminated substance, as determined by the State Council, to enter a course,
sewage or on the ground.

Before its amendment in 1988, the law was implemented through criminal trials initiated by
councils. The 1988 amendment law authorized SPCB and CPCB to shut down an industrial plant
by default.

Air Act, 1981

To implement the decisions made at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
held in Stockholm in June 1972, Parliament passed the Air Law at the national level, and the
main objectives of this law are to improve air quality and prevent and combat air pollution and
control. The framework of the Air Law is similar to the framework of the Water Law of 1974,
since the Air Law expanded the authority of the central and state councils established under the
Water Law, to include the control of pollution. from air. Required to create air pollution boards.

The government passed this law in 1981 to clean the air by controlling pollution. It establishes
that sources of air pollution, such as industry, vehicles, power plants, etc., cannot release
particles, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds
or other more toxic substances. beyond the established level.

Under the Air Act, all industries that operate within certain areas to control air pollution must
obtain "approval" (permission) from state councils. States must establish emissions standards for
industry and automobiles after consulting the Central Council and taking note of the surrounding
air quality standards. The main objective of the air law is to provide provisions to reduce and
control air pollution in the country, and to establish councils in the center and in the country to
take the necessary measures to achieve this objective. The councils receive advice to develop
systems that guarantee the control of air pollution in the country. The legislation also gives
councils advice on taking action on entities that do not meet established air quality standards.

The law contains 54 sections and seven chapters. Chapter Two and Chapter Three define the
roles and responsibilities of pollution control agencies. Chapter Four regulates the pollution
standards that are established and how they are monitored. Chapter Six describes the penalties
imposed in the event of noncompliance.

Section 3 - The central pollution control councils of the state are responsible for the impartial
exercise of the powers provided for in this law. Section 4 - In cases where there is a council to
control water pollution, the same joint responsibility is given for the control and control of air
pollution, and it will be called the Government Pollution Control Council. Section 5 - In cases
where there is no council to control water contamination, a new pollution control council will be
established.

Section 16 describes the functions of the Central Pollution Control Authority. Section 17
describes the functions of the State Council for Pollution Control. Section 19 - SPCBs have the
authority to declare any area as an air pollution control zone, in consultation with the CPCB. 22
establishes that no person or industry can emit air pollutants above the standards established by
the pollution control councils.

Section 26 gives any employee of the pollution control councils the authority to take samples
from any chimney, canal, etc. to test and see if emissions are within specified standards or not.
Section 28 allows the SPCBs Council to establish government air laboratories, either as a new
institution or by announcing the existing laboratory as a government air laboratory. These
laboratories have the authority to analyze air samples and air quality procedures as described in
the SPCB standards for that state in their regions, and Section 37 states that failure to comply
with the rules in Sections 21 and 22 will result in punishment for at least one year and 6 months.
But expandable up to 6 years with a fine.

It is worth noting that the 1987 amendment included a text on a citizen's claim in the air law and
expanded the law to include noise pollution.

Ganga pollution case

Ganga is a trans-boundary river of Asia flowing through India and Bangladesh. It is one of the
most sacred rivers to the Hindus and a lifeline to a billion Indians who live along its course. One
of the most populated cities along its course is Kanpur. This city has a population of approx. 29.2
lakhs (2.9 million). At this juncture of its course Ganga receives large amounts of toxic waste
from the city´s domestic and industrial sectors, particularly the leather tanneries of Kanpur.

Pollution of the Ganga, the largest river in India, poses significant threats to human health and
the larger environment. Severely polluted with human waste and industrial contaminants, the
river provides water to about 40% of India's population across 11 states, serving an estimated
population of 500 million people which is more than any other river in the world.The main cause
of water pollution in the Ganges river are the increase in the population density, various human
activities such as bathing, washing clothes, the bathing of animals, and dumping of various
harmful industrial waste into the rivers.

In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent these leather
tanneries from disposing off domestic and industrial waste and effluents in the Ganga River. This
writ petition was bifurcated by the Supreme Court into two parts known as Mehta I and Mehta
II.Mehta requested the court to order the leather tanneries of the Jajmau district of Kanpur to stop
discharging their untreated effluent into the river. He also claimed that the Municipal
Corporation of Kanpur was not undertaking treatment of domestic sewage. 

The Court highlighted the importance certain provisions in our constitutional framework which
enshrine the importance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that
the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, imposes a fundamental duty on
every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life.The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (the Water Act). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and
maintaining water quality.

The Supreme Court stepped up its efforts to check the centralizing efforts of the government by
passing orders that reprimanded government agencies for dereliction of duty. It ordered the
tanneries of Jajmau to clean their wastewater within six months or shut down entirely. The
Supreme Court had fined over 200 industries in the Ganga basin, penalized the State Pollution
Control Boards for false reporting, and pressed the Ministry of Environment to streamline its
proposals for treatment plants through a less wieldy set of supervisory committees. This was
followed by a January 1988 judgment that required Kanpur’s local municipality to take several
immediate measures to control water pollution: relocation of 80,000 cattle housed in dairies or
safe removal of animal waste from these locations; cleaning of the city’s sewers; building of
larger sewer systems; construction of public latrines; and an immediate ban on the disposal of
corpses into the river. The court order also required all schools to devote one hour each week to
environmental education and awareness.It appeared that the struggle for power was certainly
intensifying on paper, as the judiciary, through courtroom dramas, fines, and punishments sought
to check the power of the executive branch and industries throughout the country. Yet this
judicial activism proved profoundly limited by the very system it sought to check: by calling on
the same agencies it reprimanded to implement its orders, the Supreme Court was rendered
profoundly ineffective.

The Court further held that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as
irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which
cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist a tannery which cannot set
up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse
effect on the public at large which is likely to ensue by the discharging of the trade effluents
from the tannery to the river Ganga would be immense and it will outweigh any inconvenience
that may be caused to the management and the labour employed by it on account of its closure.

The Court relied on a common law principle which states that Municipal Corporation can be
restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account
of the pollution of the water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river
insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river.

The Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take appropriate action under the provisions
of the Adhiniyam for the prevention of water pollution in the river. It was noted that a large
number of dairies in Kanpur were also polluting the water of the river by disposing waste in it.
The Supreme Court ordered the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to direct the dairies to either shift to
any other place outside the city or dispose waste outside the city area.
Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika was ordered to increase the size of sewers in the labour colonies and
increase the number of public latrines and urinals for the use of poor people.Whenever
applications for licenses to establish new industries are made in future, such applications shall be
refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing out
of the factories.