Analysis of Ganga Pollution Case in the light of Abetment of Water Pollution

Submitted by

Sachet Labroo

Division: E PRN: 18010223101 Batch: 2018-23

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), PUNE

In

January, 2021

Under the guidance of

Mr Furqan Ahmad
INTRODUCTION

India is a country where river Ganga is called as holy river as the people of our country believe that Ganga is
associated with Lord Shiva and Maa Ganga. This river has been given the utmost importance among all the
other rivers. But despite giving this river holy status it is a harsh reality that River Ganga is one of the most
polluted rivers in the country and the most polluted sites is the city of Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. In this research
paper I will examine the landmark case M.C Mehta versus Union of India in the year 1987 in Supreme Court.
M.C Mehta filed a petition regarding the pollution of river Ganga because of the untreated waste disposed of by
the industries into the river Ganga mainly in the city of Kanpur.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the significance of M.C Mehta v Union of India with regards to development of environmental
law in India and the steps taken by Supreme Court to eradicate the pollution?
2. Despite so many developments in environmental law after the case of M.C Mehta v Union of India, why
is the Ganga River still polluted?

MAIN BODY

In 1985, M.C Mehta filed a writ of mandamus to prevent all the industries to dispose of all the untreated
sewage, pollutants and effluents in the Ganga River. It was mentioned in the petition by M.C Mehta that the
industries should strictly be restrained from releasing any effluents or anything that is polluting in nature into
the river until and unless it is treated by incorporating certain treatment plants so that water pollution can be
curtailed. In that regard the Court highlighted some of the important provisions of our constitution, which
enshrines The importance of protecting our environment and the need for it. Article 48-A 1 was primarily the
subject of Article 51-A2 of the Honourable Court. The problem of effluent trade was also raised. It is essentially
any solid, liquid, gas material discharged from the institution used to carry out any trade or industrial operation.
The Court also claimed that the state government had not taken any successful measures to avoid the nuisance
created by the tanneries in Kanpur. The most heavily polluting field was the leather industry. A great number of
chemicals were involved in the process of fleshing, tanning, separating. There were a number of directions and
orders passed by the Court to curtail the pollution. These steps were very much necessary to help reduce the
water pollution and improve the quality of water of Ganga river.

On September 9, 1985 industries that were located on the banks of the river Ganga in the urban areas were
given the notice in which it was stated that the factories should stop discharging the untreated effluents into the
river Ganga. In October 1987, the SC had invoked the Water Act and Environmental Protection Act as well as
Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Court ordered the tanneries to clean the waste water that they used to
discharge into Ganga within six months or shut down completely.

1
State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. 
2
fundamental duty on every citizen the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
In January 1988, court directed the local municipality of Kanpur to take several measures to control water
pollution. It was said that they needed to relocate 80,000 cattle housed in dairies and safe removal of animal
waste from these locations that will clean the city’s sewer systems and an immediate ban was imposed on the
disposal of corpses into the Holy River.

On April 8, 1992 the State Pollution Control Boards of three states were given orders to identify the industries
that were discharging the effluents in the river and polluting the river and afterwards submit the report.

On July 23, 1993 a group of plants were shut down which were causing pollution and others were warned to
take pollution control measures or else they will also be shut down.

One of the most significant moves was that the government launched the first environmental scheme to tackle
river pollution in India when the Ganga Pollution case was heard. The Ganga Action Plan was designed to
resolve waste management concerns and problems by diverting and handling industrial waste.

The central and state offices of different government departments were able to shift towards the monopolization
of power in the field of urban waste management during the implementation of the Ganga Action Plan. By
effectively avoiding debates with non-governmental organisations, they achieved this. NGOs also claimed that
long-term planning was challenging because of the frequent changes of senior decision-makers in government
agencies.

The central and state offices of different government departments were able to shift towards the monopolization
of power in the field of urban waste management during the implementation of the Ganga Action Plan. By
effectively avoiding debates with non-governmental organisations, they achieved this. NGOs also claimed that
long-term planning was challenging because of the frequent changes of senior decision-makers in government
agencies.

By passing orders that fined government departments for abuse of authority, the Supreme Court stepped up its
efforts to check the government's centralizing efforts. By 1995, over 200 companies in the Ganga basin had
been fined by the Supreme Court. The State Pollution Control Boards have penalized false reporting and the
Ministry of the Environment has been advised to streamline its treatment plant plans into a less effective set of
supervisory committees. This landmark case has proven very critical for advancing environmental legislation.
Different steps to reduce pollution from the Ganga River have been taken by the courts, the government and the
local authorities.
Despite this case and so many recent developments river Ganga is still polluted. Though it has shown some
progress but still there is a long way to go. There are many reasons because of which the river Ganga is still
populated.

Lack of legislation elasticity: Creating laws and regulations is over-ambitious. In such a condition, the
compliance rate will be low. Adhering to absolute standards is critical. These standards are typically not
technology-based or performance-based, nor are they related to the amount of pollution generated. Therefore,
the condition of the environment will continue to deteriorate, even with strict regulations. Over-ambitious
standards discourage businesses from making technological investments that reduce pollution.

Weak Enforcement: Regulation is bad, and management of the climate is degenerating into crisis management.
Therefore, the effect on regulation of non-existent or merely formal inspection attracts a rather weak response
from companies towards compliance. Industries and cities have overlooked the orders of the High Court. There
was no action taken by national and state pollution control authorities to implement them.

In a case of MC Mehta v UOI, after a study submitted by NEERI on the pollution caused by mining, the closure
of all mines within a 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and Surajkund (a tourist place) was also ruled out. Mining
operations were carried out without any permission given for under the Air Act. There was complete
infringement of the Mining Act.

Bad monitoring: Lack of technically skilled labor contributes to inappropriate monitoring, as it becomes
difficult to scientifically assess the level of pollution created by corporations. It is not an easy job to keep
Ganga clean, but it is not an impossible one either. What is needed is initiative, selfless enthusiasm, devotion
and professional pride, elements that are unfortunately missing here.

Lack of effective punitive measures: As stated before, in the event of non-compliance, there is a lack of an
effective punitive and deterrence mechanism. The fines levied on businesses in the event of non-compliance,
irrespective of the level of compliance and the quantity and nature of the pollutants, are exceedingly low. A
defaulting firm faces a fine of just Rs. 10,000 or imprisonment of up to three months, which is bailable,
regardless of the level of pollution. The problem is also exacerbated by the problem of pending court
proceedings. “Justice is delayed is Justice Denied”

Lack of funds The paucity of funds is the fifth big constraint. A research has found that one of the important
reasons behind inadequate monitoring is low funding levels. The PCBs lack sufficient infrastructure facilities,
such as laboratories and monitoring equipment, required for the execution of their duties due to the lack of
funds. The Municipal Corporation of India has also been held to be wholly remiss in discharging its duties
under the constitution. It is not necessary for officials entrusted with the job of pollution control to sit back with
folded hands under the pretext that they have no financial or other means of pollution control and
environmental protection.
The climate and economy of India have endured the twin and damaging insults of opposing management for
years. It takes years, on the one hand, for companies to receive air, water, and land permits from state and
national regulators, what India calls "clearance." At every step of the process, the scheme, originally intended to
encourage careful scrutiny, has become a perfect generator of payoffs and bribes. Similarly, the contribution to
the deterioration of the Ganga of other pro pollution sources, such as untreated wastewater or open defecation,
is not well known and will require more study. A sufficient amount of high quality data would be needed for
any water quality assessment and modeling. The current monitoring network for water quality along the Ganga
and tributaries is very weak and will need to be improved with a significantly greater number of stations, more
parameter monitoring and more frequency.

The exact contribution to the depletion of water quality in the Ganga River from agriculture, livestock and
aquaculture is not known. These industries have been found to be major contributors to water pollution in
countries such as China, the United States and other countries in Europe. Trends in agrochemical use as well as
livestock density indicate that these pressures in the Ganga Basin may also be significant. A sustained study and
modeling effort will be required to better understand the routes and loads of nutrients and organic matter from
these sources to water bodies in order to understand the magnitude of the issue.3

Great investments are required to ensure the quality of river water is improved. Through the Namami Gange
scheme, the government of India has already allocated over INR 200 billion for this reason. With this proposed
investment, the Indian government aims to create a market through a reuse and recycling method for treated
sewage and industrial effluents, thereby keeping rivers free from sewage and industrial effluents. In fact, this
approach will contribute to the internalized effect of the discharge of wastewater and industrial waste in the
process of urbanization and industrial growth, respectively. This will also make the "polluters pay" concept
operative. By means of a public private partnership (PPP), much more investment can be drawn from local
urban bodies and industries, as this will also mean water protection for urban centers and industries. This will
implicitly allow polluters to pay for their act of cleaning up and thereby keep water sources free of pollution.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides empirical proof that the 1987 decision of the Supreme Court in Mehta vs. Union of India,
which mainly targeted the Kanpur district tanning industry, triggered a decrease in both surface areas. Pollution
of water. This case has been proven to be one of the most important precedent in the field of environmental law
and have acted as a guiding principle for the various other cases in the Supreme Court in which protecting the
environment has been the top priority by the Apex Court. Though this case has been important case in
curtailing the pollution but it has not been very helpful. Therefore, a better understanding of the effect of
pollution on health and the environment and the cost of such impacts would help raise awareness of the severity
of the issue and help explain the substantial investments required to restore the river.

3
Evaluation of Environmental Laws and Proposals for Reforms - A Report, prepared by the Centre for Environmental Law Education,
Research, and Advocacy Research Team (Mumbai (1998).