CASE ANALYSIS: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION v UNION

OF INDIA

FACTS OF THE CASE

 FACTUAL
1. In Rajasthan, a small village Bichhri in Udaipur district experienced death and
illnesses due to groundwater contamination.
2. This is because the village was occupied by chemical industries like Hindustan Zinc
Ltd, Rajasthan Multi Fertilizers, Phosphate India and others to gain huge profit at the
cost of environment by encouraging industrialization and exports.
3. Hindustan Zinc Ltd established its industries in 1987 and started producing chemicals
like oleum and single super phosphate.
4. Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals started producing ‘H’ acid which increased the
release iron and gypsum-based sludge.
5. The waste was estimated to be 2500 tonnes while producing 350 tonnes of ‘H’ acid.
6. The waste was not adequately treated leading to water, air and soil pollution. This
hinders the source of livelihood of many people. The water turned dark due to sludge
disposal, spreading diseases in the village.
7. The inhabitants protest led to enforcement of Section 144 of CrPC and ordered
closing of all the units in January 1989.

 PROCEDURAL
1. A writ petition was filed by the Indian Council for Environmental-Legal Action in
1989 for appropriate remedial action.
2. An affidavit was filed by Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (RPCB) about the
required permissions. The board has granted NOC to the industry for manufacturing
sulphuric acid and alumina sulphate. The unit started manufacturing other products
without consent.
3. Under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the unit was closed.
4. A detailed report was submitted by National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI). Based on this report, SC ordered removal of sludge lying on land
and The Ministry of Environment and Forest was directed to appoint experts.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Whether the cost can be recovered from the respondents and what is their liability?
2. What are the permissions and whether these are required by the industries?
3. To what extent, the court has power to call for action against respondents?

ANALYSIS

Article 48A as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy said that the State shall
endeavour to shield and enhance the surroundings and to shield the forests and wildlife of the
country.

The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 defines "surroundings" to include "water, air and
land and the inter-courting which exists amongst and among water, air and land and human
beings, different dwelling creatures, plants, microorganism and property."

The Central Government has also created the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling)
Rules, 1989 in exercise of the strength conferred upon it through Section 6 of the
Environment (Protection) Act prescribing the way wherein the risky wastes will be collected,
treated, saved and disposed of.

RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT

The courtroom docket closely depended on the observations of the Constitution Bench
Judgement in M. C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and Others (1987) 1 SCC 395
referred to as Oleum Gas Leak Case. The rule of absolute legal responsibility became
developed in India after this situation. According to the guideline of thumb of absolute legal
responsibility, if any man or woman is engaged in an inherently risky or dangerous pastime,
and if any damage is triggered to any man or woman 62 because of an twist of fate which
happened throughout sporting out such inherently risky and dangerous pastime, then the
person that is sporting out such pastime will be ‘clearly liable’. This strays from the precept
of strict legal responsibility held in Rylands v. Fletcher which nonetheless has sure defences.
The courtroom docket in this situation significantly implemented the precept of Polluter Pays.
Under this precept, it’s the polluter who should now no longer simply compensate the
sufferers of the pollution, however additionally pay the costs and costs of restoring the
environmental degradation. The Supreme Court determined hence, as soon as the pastime
carried on is dangerous or inherently risky; the man or woman sporting on such pastime
should make suitable the loss which is triggered to different man or woman, irrespective of
whether or not or now no longer affordable care became taken when sporting on such an
pastime. The Polluter Pays Principle hence imposes absolute legal responsibility in such
cases. After listening to the discovered counsels for the events at length, the Court gave the
next directions: The Central Government could ought to decide the quantity required for
sporting out the remedial measures. Just in case of failure of the stated respondents to pay the
stated quantity the equal will be recovered with the aid of using the Central Government
according with law. The Court ordered the closure of all of the flora and factories of the
respondents located withinside the Bichhri Village and without delay RSPCB to seal all of
the factories, flora, machinery of the stated respondents. In 2011, nearly 15 years after
passing the remaining judgment it wasn’t enforced. Hence, a Writ Petition became filed
withinside the Supreme Court below the equal name “Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
v. Union of India” (2011) eight SCC 161 arguing that respondents stored submitting diverse
interlocutory programs to keep away from the legal responsibility of paying the quantity for
remediation and expenses imposed with the aid of using the courtroom docket at the settled
judicial doctrine that Polluter Pays Principle. The Supreme Court hence determined: “A man
or woman in wrongful ownership shouldn’t simplest be aloof from that region as early as
feasible however be pressured to pay cash for wrongful use of that premises. Any leniency
could critically have an effect on the credibility of the system. No litigants can derive enjoy
the mere pendency of a case in a very Court of Law. A party cannot be allowed to take
blessings of his personal wrong.” On the above observations, the Apex Court ordered the
applicant enterprise to pay Rs.37.385 crores collectively with compound interest @12%
consistent with annum from November 14, 1997 until the quantity is paid or recovered. The
applicant enterprise is additionally directed to pay the fee of litigation. The idea of inflation
charge became additionally assumed as an argument. In addition, the Supreme Court directed
applicant enterprise to pay value of Rs.10 Lakhs which is probably applied for concluding
remedial degree withinside the village Bichhri and surrounding regions in Udaipur

CONCLUSION

The case performs an essential function withinside the utilization of the ‘polluter pays’
principle. It turned into additionally a landmark case while it got here to the levying of the
whole value for the losses incurred with the aid of using the RCPD withinside the procedure
of clearing up the poisonous sludge. The judges additionally known as for the putting up of
separate environmental courts that is extraordinarily essential in an increasing number of
enterprises orientated united states like ours. This lengthy drawn-out case is an instance of the
exploitation of the procedure of regulation. In order to set up the credibility of the regulation
stricter orders want to imposed and industries ought to be made to recognize those orders.
Especially withinside the case of addressing the sufferings of the underprivileged rural
terrible there ought to be a manner for those men and women to be equitably compensated for
the problem that they move through.