CASE ANALYSIS:

M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries' Matter) v. Union of India

By:Chiraiya Saruparia,
Intern,
BA LL. B (Hons.) Energy Law
3rd Year,
UPES School of Law
Mob- 8764125754
Email- chiraiya0308@gmail.com

26th APRIL 2020

Background of The Case

M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries' Matter) v. Union of India1

Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal, has always been a leading leather hub of India. Its
leather industry covers the entire manufacturing process. More than 500 tanneries are situated
in mainly in Tangra, Tiljala, Topsia and Pagla Danga areas of the city. Few years back, these
areas used to be in the outskirts of the city. However, with the speedy growth and expansion,
the area became densely populated with time. And as a result, the tanneries could not expand
and modernize. They were working without an Effluent Treatment Plant and causing great
pollution in the surroundings as well as in the River Ganga. Sensing the seriousness of the
issue and damage to environment as well as humans, the Government of West Bengal, in
1992, decided to relocate the tanneries to an area big enough to contain the tanneries along
with an efficient Effluent Treatment Plant and other facilities which would help in treating
the solid and liquid waste, before discharging. The project planned was a big one and the
government had in mind to establish ‘Calcutta Leather Complex’ within an area of around
507 hectares.2

Brief Facts of the Case

A petition was filed in public interest under article 32 of the Constitution of India. Though
the court initially gave directions for tanneries located in Kanpur, however after seeing the
quantity of untreated water being discharged in the Ganga, the court called upon the
industries located in other cities too on the banks of the Ganga to stop this unethical
practice.3The Cause of Action arose when NEERI (National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute) in one of its report mentioned that ninety per cent of the tanneries located
in Calcutta use chrome-based tanning process. Here, the matter is concerned with about 550
tanneries located in Calcutta at Tangra, Tiljala, Topsia and Pagla Danga.It was observed by
the inspection team that there was no system or method of controlling both solid as well as
liquid waste. There were also open drains destructing the ecology and causing severe hygiene
problems. The order given in Kanpur Tanneries matter provided that the effluent or such
1
(1997) 2 SCC 411.
2
CLC TANNERS ASSOCIATION at http://calcuttaleathercomplex.in/new_website/about/.
3
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
waste is ten times more harmful then the domestic sewage water.4 Thus, the carelessness of
the state of West Bengal and the West Bengal Pollution Control Board is evident as they have
not stopped the environmental degradation from years.

Issues of the Case

1. The 550 tanneries situated mainly in the 4 areas of Calcutta do not have an efficient
effluent treatment plant or waste management mechanism.
2. The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around
hundred tanneries applied for it.
3. Whether it is possible to set up a common effluent treatment plant for all the
tanneries?
4. The site where the new leather complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.

Arguments of the Case

 After the scope of matter in Kanpur tanneries case expanded, there were still tanneries
functioning without consent and proper resources. In this case, around 550 tanneries
located on the bank of River Ganga were called upon to stop discharging untreated
effluent into the river. The tanneries were posing a major threat to the environment.
According to the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, following
were the conditions prevalent at the site of the Calcutta tanneries:

(1) there were no treatment facilities for the effluents, waste water drainage and collection
systems, as a consequence of which the untreated waste water, flowing through open
drains, was posing serious environmental, health and hygiene problems;

(2) most of the tannery units were located in extremely congested and thickly populated,
areas, affording little scope for the installation and modernisation of effluent treatment
plants.
 On 19-2-1993 the State Government informed this Court that the Calcutta tanneries were
being shifted from their present location and the new location would be fully equipped
4
Ibid.
 with pollution control devices. However, the State Government filed an application
seeking time extension of 3 years in August, 1993. Though the court considered the
application, but gave the extension of only 3 months for shifting the industries and
erecting a common effluent plant. The tanneries had to exercise one choice: Either the
tanneries were to be allowed to remain in their present locations but subject to the
construction of a common effluent treatment plant; or they were to shift out to a new
government-constructed leather complex, with all the facilities for treating the effluents.
 The court further directed the Secretary, Small- Scale Industries, Government of West
Bengal to prepare a plan regarding the land for shifting industries and the compensation
to be paid to the industries. After analysing all the possibilities, it was stated that these
tanneries were operating from a substantial time period but has paid no heed to the
environmental pollution control and does not have enough space for even common ETPs
to set-up. Now the only feasible and practicable solution is to shift the tanneries to a new
area.
 The tanneries had to apply for consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, however, no one applied till 1989, and around 1989 only around
hundred tanneries applied for it. The State Board issued a show-cause notice to the
tanneries and as a result around 275 tanneries to apply for consent, however it was
granted to none. Those tanneries submitted a stamped paper that they were willing to
move to any place as decided by the State government.
 On 20-2-1995 this Court was informed that the estimated cost of the land in the new
complex would be Rupees 860.00 per sq. m. The learned counsel appearing for the
Calcutta tanneries, however, contended that the price suggested was on the higher side.
Various suggestions for reducing the cost of land were considered.
 Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of WestBengal, very fairly
stated that it would be possible for the State of WestBengal to meet 50% of the cost of the
project. He further states that theState will arrange the funds either from its own sources
or from financialinstitutions or other sources.
 Therefore, it was agreed by all that the project of setting up of common effluent treatment
plant shall be undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan, Phase II and its total cost of Rs.
65 crores shall be met 50% by the Ganga Project Directorate and the remaining 50% by
the StateGovernment in the manner indicated by the learned Advocate General.
 The court reiterated that after the treatment plant is constructed and the tanneries are
shifted to the new complex, 'effluent charge' shall be levied on the tanneries for
reimbursing the amount spent on the common effluent treatment plants in a phased
manner.
 Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Tanneries' Association
stated that there was no objection to relocate. The main difficulty was to set up an ETP.
The State and Central Government along with tanneries association must pool financial
resources for the same.Thus, essentially what was required to be worked out was the
dynamics of accounting the costs involved in relocation and setting up of the treatment
plant.
 Mr R. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the West Bengal Pollution Control
Board, stated that individual notices have been issued to all the tanneries to be relocated.
The learned counsel for the tanneries has brought to our notice that some of the tannery-
owners are residing within the tannery premises. The learned counsel further contends
that after the tanneries are relocated, the residence part of the premises may be permitted
to remain with them.
 Learned counsel appearing for about 208 Calcutta tanneries of Chinese origin, stated that
it was technically feasible to set up a common effluent treatment plant within the area
where the tanneries were situated. Itwas further stated that the tanneries were prepared to
meet the cost of the project by pooling the resources. However, all this was contrary to
the State Pollution Board’s contention placed before the Court that the setting up of the
common effluent treatment plant/plants at the existing tanneries’ complexes was not
possible and relocation was the only alternative available.
 Although the Board had repeatedly stated before this Court that the setting up of the
common effluent treatment plant/plants at the existing tanneries' complexes was not
possible but despite that this Court gave liberty to Mr. Shanti Bhushan to file a short
affidavit indicating the details of the project.
 The learned counsel for the Calcutta tanneries contended that the site where the new
leather complex is being set up is a part of the wetland.
 However, it was observed in the Technical Report by the surveyor indicating that the new
leather complex does not fall within the area of the wetland. No material to the contrary
has been placed on record by the Calcutta tanneries. Therefore, the court rejects the
contention of the learned counsel that the new leather complex is a part of the wetland.
Legal Aspect of The Case

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act)
 According to Section 24 of the Act, polluting or disposing in streams, wells, etc. is
prohibited as no one can knowingly dispose of any poisonous or polluting matter into
any stream, well or on land.
 ‘Pollution’ is defined u/s 2(e) as either water contamination or alteration in properties
of water which may be done by discharging sewage or trade effluents into water
which is injurious to public health or to health of other organisms or to any uses
including domestic, commercial or agricultural.
 ‘Stream’ may include river, any water course, inland water, sea and subterranean
waters.5
 ‘Trade effluent’ includes substances discharged from any premises like an industry,
operation or disposal system, other than domestic sewage.6
 Section 25 of the Act provides for consent from the State Board and restricts new
outlets and discharges or any industry or system likely to discharge the waste into
water or on land. The application for consent of State Board must be made as
prescribed in the Act along with the fees.
 Section 26 of the act provides for the situation where a person was discharging
sewage or effluents into the water before the commencement of the Act. In such a
situation, provision under section 25 is applicable to him subject to some
modifications as mentioned in the Act.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

 The preamble of the act states that: “An Act to provide for the protection and
improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith.”
 This act is a result of the Stockholm conference 7 in which India participated to take
steps for protection and improvement of environment and the prevention of hazards to
human beings, other living creatures, plants and property.

5
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(j).
6
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 2(k).
7
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972.
Thus, a clear reading of the above provisions leaves no doubt as to the violation of these
provisions by the Calcutta tanneries. As already mentioned in the facts, the tanneries neither
had the consent nor the prescribed system to function in that environment, causing great loss
to its surroundings. Thus, they must be held liable under the Water Act and The Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.

Environment and Constitution of India:

It is the duty of the citizens and the State to keep the environment clean and protect it. The
Indian Constitution contains specific provisions for environment protection under the
chapters of Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties. The absence of a
specific provision in the Constitution recognizing the fundamental right to clean and
wholesome environment has been set off by judicial activism in the recent times.8

Article 48A: It was added to DPSPs by 42 nd Amendment9 to the Constitution of India. It

provides for protection and improvement of the environment. It was brought as a result of
increasing International awareness and Stockholm conference. It imposes an obligation on the
State to protect the environment for destruction.

Similarly, Article 51-A (g) imposes a Fundamental Duty on the citizens to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures.

8
Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with Relevant Case Laws at
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
9
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.
Relevant Case Laws

Sher Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

It was observed in this case that though there is no specific Fundamental Right relating to
protection of environment but with advent of law, and with various judgments of the
Supreme Court of India, Article 21, the reservoir of Fundamental rights has been extended to
contain the right to a clean and decent environment.

Article 48A and Article 51 A (g) of the Indian Constitution imposes a duty upon the
Government; Centre and State and the citizens respectively to protect and improve the
environment. This was also held by the court inT.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of
India & Ors.10

Article 25(1) of UDHR guarantees ‘right to a standard of adequate living for health and well-
being of himself and his family.’11

The term 'life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal
existence. 12It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard
of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure.

M.C. Mehta  v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries’ matter)

In this case a PIL was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to restrain the people
from discharging the trade effluents into the Ganga till the time they set up the required
treatment plants are established in the tanneries.
The petitioner in this case contended that neither the Government nor the people were
fulfilling their duty to protect the environment, and in this case, the Ganga from the pollution.
The petitioner also contended that the trade effluent discharged from tanneries was ten times
noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any
urban area. The respondents stated that due to lack of technology, resources and capital, it
was not possible to put in the required treatment plants and pleaded for some time to install
pre-treatment plants but at last, submitted that it was not at all possible for them to install a
whole system of treatment plant as they would not be able to meet its expenses.

10
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
11
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A 25.
12
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
The court held that ‘the State and Citizens were under a constitutional duty to protect and
improve the environment13 and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.14 And, it
was the duty of the State Government, through the State Boards,15 and the Central
Government to use the powers conferred upon them by statute to take all such measures as it
deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the
environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. 16 The Hon’ble
Court observed that a tannery which does not have a primary treatment plant cannot be given
permission by giving an example of an industry which cannot be allowed to exist if it does
not pay minimum wages to its workers.

Therefore, the court cannot choose the financial incapacity of the tanneries over the loss of
life, health and environment which is much more important. The tanneries which fail to
establish primary treatment plants were ordered to be shut down.

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum  v. Union of India17 (Tanneries case)

This public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by the
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum against pollution which was being caused by the enormous
discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu.
Several tanneries operating in the State of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluent
into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was
finally discharged in River Palar, which was the main source of water supply to the residents
of the area. According to a survey 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the tanneries belt,
had become either partially or totally unfit for cultivation. This was the effect of about 170
types of chemicals in the chrome-based tanning processes.It was revealed that 350 wells out
of a total of 467 used for drinking and irrigation purposes had been polluted as a result of
which women and children had to walk miles to get drinking water.

13
Environment” includes water, air and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water,
air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property. [The Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, s 2(a)]. 
14
The Constitution of India, a 48A.
15
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 16 and 17. 
16
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, s 3 and 5.
17
(1996) 5 SCC 647.
The Supreme Court had in various orders indicated that these tanneries were liable to pay
pollution fine and to compensate the affected persons as also pay the cost of restoring the
damaged ecology.There was evidence that the tanneries and other industries had been
exhorted for ten years to control pollution but to no avail. The court ordered the central
Government to constitute an authority and confer on it all powers necessary to deal with the
situation. The authority was to implement the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays”
principle. It would also identify the families who had suffered from the pollution and access
compensation and the amount to be paid by the polluters to reverse the ecological damage.
The court required the Madras High Court to monitor the implementation of its orders
through a special bench to be constituted and called a “Green Bench” 

Critical Analysis of the Judgement

In this case, the Court made it clear many times that the tanneries which failed to either
relocate or set up an ETP should be shut down unconditionally. The court also laid down that
the area
vacated by the tanneries was to be maintained as a green area in any form at the discretion of
the State Government.18 However, unlike the Kanpur Tanneries’ matter where the Court had
held that the environmental issues at stake outweighed the unemployment considerations, in
the present case, the workmen employed in the Calcutta tanneries were held to be entitled to
certain rights and benefits. The workmen were to have continuity of employment at the new
place where the tannery was being shifted and the terms and conditions of their employment
were also not to be altered to their detriment. Further, the period between the closure of the
tannery at its old site and its restart at the place of relocation was to be treated as active
employment and the workmen were to be paid their full wages with continuity of service. All
workmen agreeing to shift with the tanneries were to be given one year’s wages as “shifting
bonus” to help them settle at the new location. However, the workmen employed in the
tanneries, which failed to relocate, were to be deemed to have been retrenched with effect
from the closure dates of the tanneries.

With these directions, the case was transferred to the Calcutta High Court, which was held to
be in the best position to deal with the case. The “Green Bench” already functioning in the

18
The State Government could keep in view for its guidance in using the land for “green purposes”, the order of
the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 351, relating to the shifting of the Delhi
industries. 
Calcutta High Court was to treat the matter as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and proceed with it in accordance with law and also in terms of the directions issued
by the Supreme Court.

In this decision we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in spite of being uncompromising in
securing the protection of the environment and prevention of pollution did not at the same
time overlook the interests of the hundreds of people working in these tanneries. Thus, while
the Court came to the conclusion that relocation was the only practical solution to the
problem, it also ensured that the Government took adequate steps not to inordinately burden
the tanning industry and its poor workers, economically.

Conclusion

Tanneries play an important role in the Indian economy mainly due to the large number of
employment opportunities generated by them for the people of economically weaker society.
However, the amount of environmental pollution escaped from the tanneries is increasing day
by day, damaging the ecology and causing severe health issues to the people living in the
surrounding areas. The main reason behind this damage is that the tanneries are set up in an
area which is over populated and there’s no scope for the tanneries to expand and set up the
proper requirements. There are various cases in which the people who work in the tanneries
have no other place to stay and they prefer to sleep in there. This congestion along with
financial incapacity to set up treatment plants are the most important causes of environmental
degradation. Many of them are still working without having consent of the State Board
according to the Water Act. They continue to discharge the solid, liquid or gaseous waste,
which is also chemically treated, into the water bodies acting as a continuous source of
danger to the environment. There is no doubt how far a country can progress if there’s some
control over the environmental degradation. It would result in better surroundings and
working environment for the workers, less health issues to the people living nearby and
coming in contact of contaminated water and restoring the original state of the rivers.The
Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries’ matter) took a bold
decision by giving more importance to the life of citizens and the organisms over the
financial condition of tanneries. The Ganga which has once been the purest form of water
resource has been polluted and is in a terrible state today. It has played and will continue to
play an important role in lives of millions of people.
It should be reiterated that the leather industry in India occupies a prominent place in the
economy especially because of its export earnings and its scope for employment. Thus, the
approach taken in the Calcutta Tanneries’ matter, whereby the Court’s attitude was more
directed towards striking a balance between the concerns of industry and environment is
preferable. Therefore, rather than imposing a blanket order of closure, courts should
emphasise on relocation of tanneries and protection of jobs.

REFERENCES
M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries' Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India19 (Tanneries case) (1996) 5 SCC 647.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The Constitution of India.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

Brief about Author

Chiraiya Saruparia is a 3rd year student at UPES School of Law. She has a keen interest in
Family and Civil law. She is interested in enhancing her knowledge in drafting and
contemporary socio-legal issues. She has previously interned with various organisations since
her first year like an NGO, district court and law firm. She is currently pursuing a Certificate
course on Art Law. She is the former Student Joint Secretary of Moot Court Association of
UPES School of Law and has facilitated organisation of various moot court competitions. She
is dedicated towards her work and believes in planning and achieving.

19
(1996) 5 SCC 647.