Water Pollution-Judicial Response

A.Usha1

Introduction

Globalization has become famous with a number of developments, most of which may
have developed or accelerated since World War II. They include greater international
movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of
technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement.
Globalization has also been seen as the promotion of a corporatist interests, which is
intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim
that the increasing Sovereign and strength of corporate entities increasingly shapes the
political policy of nation-states.

Some people argue that globalization or Internationalisation, results in unsustainable

growth by degradating the environment. Even though advance in regional modeling,
predicting climate change impacts on water resources is extremely difficult, in part
because water resources are not only shaped by the hydrological cycle but also the
changes in population, technology, and the social, and economic shortcomings.
Increasing population, urbanization, pollution or environmental degrading, changing
agricultural sectors, and institutional and legislative conditions are some of the diverse
factors that ultimately determine future water demands.

The impact on irrigation is especially important since agriculture currently accounts for
about 70 percent of water consumption worldwide, with the UN projecting a 50 to 100
percent increase in irrigation water by 2025. Climate change trends in temperature and
precipitation and changing climate variability will have impacts on water resources. For
instance, changes in temperature, precipitation, and water flow timing and glaciers will
all directly impact water supply. When combined with social, economic, and political
factors (such as rising populations, expanding and intensification of agricultural
production, industrialization, etc.) climate change may damage development goals in
many countries. For example, increased summer continental drying will cause more
repeated and severe droughts.

Corporate hijacking of water is facilitated by the creation of corporate States and this is
evident by the movement against Coca-Cola in Plachimada in Kerala State. The Coca-
Cola plant in Plachimada was established in March 2000 to produce 1,224,000 bottles
of Coca-Cola products a day and issued a conditional license to install a motor-driven
water pump by the panchayat (an elected village council, the editor). However, the
company started to illegally extract millions of liters of clean water. According to the
local people, Coca-Cola was extracting 1.5 million liters per day. The water level started
to fall, dropping from 150 to 500 feet below the earth’s surface. Tribes and farmers
complained that water storage and supply were being adversely affected by
indiscriminate installation of bore wells for tapping groundwater, resulting in serious
consequence for crop cultivation. The wells were also threatening traditional drinking-
water sources, ponds and water tanks, waterways and canals. When the company failed

1
B.A, LLM, (PhD) Osmania University,
Research Associate, ICFAI, Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad. Email: usharaock@yahoo.co.in

1
to comply with the panchayat request for details, a show-cause notice was served and
the license was cancelled. The Coca Cola not only steal the water of the local
community, it also caused pollution. The company deposited waste material outside the
plant, which, during the rainy season, spread into paddy fields, canals and wells, causing
serious health hazards but also environmental pollution. As a result of this dumping,
260 bore wells, provided by public authorities for the drinking water and agriculture
facilities have become dry. In 2003 the district medical officer informed the people of
Plachimada their water was not fit for drinking purpose. So the pollution caused to the
ground water was severe. The women who already knew their water were toxic, had to
walk miles to get water for drinking. Coca-Cola had created water scarcity in a water
abundant region. At cost of development we are forced to deteriorate the natural
resources.

This was the case of Coca-Cola in 2002 they staged a dharma (sit-in) at the gates of
Coca-Cola. On September 21, 2003, a huge rally delivered an ultimatum to Coca-Cola.
And in January 2004, a World water Conference brought global activists like Jose Bové
And Maude Barlow to Plachimada to support the local activists. A 4 movement started
by local adivasi women had unleashed a national and global wave of people’s energy in
their support. The local panchayat used its constitutional rights to serve notice to Coca-
Cola. The Perumatty panchayat also filed public interest litigation in the Kerala High
Court against Coca-Cola. The court supported the women’s demands and, in an order
given on December 16, 2003, Justice Balakrishnana Nair ordered Coca-Cola to stop
pirating Plachimada’s water. Justice Nair’s decision stated: The public trust doctrine
primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters, and the
forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly
unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift
of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status
in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the
enjoyment of the genera public rather than to permit their use for private ownership of
commercial purpose…

On February 17, 2004, the Kerala Chief Minister, under pressure from the growing
movement and a drought-aggravated water crisis, ordered the closure of the Coca-Cola
plant. The Plachimada issue is currently in the Indian Supreme Court and the plant
remains closed. Although they describe these as bottling plants; actually they are
pumping stations, each of which extracts up to 1.5m litres of water a day from the
ground. It takes nine litres of clean water to manufacture a litre of Coke. The factories
spew out toxic waste that threatens health and the environment.

Constitutional Provisions

The right to healthy environment is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India. Environment and development are the two issues which
cannot be alienated, as both are equally important for the betterment of future
environment and sustainability. Environmental issues are to be handled effectively with
the participation of all concerned citizens. The Constitution assures the people of India
a bright future in the maters of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity with dignity of the
individual unity and integrity of the nation. The essential provisions concerning socio
economic justice of the people as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution are
provided in detail, in Part III and IV thereof. These provisions have under gone a lot of

2
change by means of judicial interpretation reassuring the people of their dreamy lives.
“Water is a public good; and since the State and its various agencies are under an
obligation to protect groundwater against excessive exploitation, their inaction
constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
constitution. Principles for interpretation of the constitution ‘balancing of interest’ and
the ‘intentionalist’ approach are referred to see how these are looked from the
perspective of expanding the horizons of the Article 21 to include the right to healthy
and pollution free environment. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar2 it was observed
that “Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it
includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
Anything prejudicial to that quality of life, the citizens has a right to judicial remedy
under Article 32 of the constitution implies on the Supreme Court.

Article 48-A provides that “the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”. Further a new
provision Article 51-A in the form of “Fundamental Duties” was also incorporated by
the 42nd Amendment. According to the Sub-clause (g) of Art.51-A, “it shall be the duty
of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”. These
two provisions impose responsibilities i.e. gives a directive to the State for protection
and improvement of environment, imposes a duty on every citizen to help in the
preservation of natural environment. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
of the State Policy underline our national commitment to protect and improve the
environment.

Public Interest Litigation

The concept of Public Interest Litigation was initiated in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit
Karmachari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India3, where an unregistered association of
workers was permitted to institute a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for
redressal of common grievance. Public interest litigation means any public spirited
citizen can move/ approach the Court for the public cause by filing a writ petition under
Article 32 in Supreme Court and Article 226 in High Court under the constitution
respectively for directions in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitio, quo
warranto and certiorari. Article 32 belongs to the domain of the Fundamental Rights;
therefore under this Article only the Supreme Court can grant the remedy. Article 226
on the other hand is a general remedy; and the High Courts are competent to grant the
remedy. In matters of environmental pollution the remedy of mandamus, certiorari and
prohibition are generally granted, where as the remedy of writ is resorted to frequently,
because it helps disposing the case in a comparatively shorter period than that of a suit
in a civil court, less financial burden is involved and there is no need for the oral
evidence. So here the aggrieved person directly approaches a higher court and saves
time energy and financial expenditure. Public Interest Litigation is not defined in any
statute or in any act, but the Judges to consider the intent of public at large have
interpreted the concept. Although, the main and the only focus of such litigation is
"Public Interest" there are various areas where public interest litigation can be filed. For
example Violation of basic human rights of the poor or conduct of government policy,

2
(1991)1 SCC598
3
AIR1981SC 298

3
to Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty etc. Violation of religious
rights or other basic fundamental rights. The explicit idea of Public Interest Litigation is
to alienate the suffering of all those who have borne the burnt of insensitive treatment in
the hands of fellow human being. Transparency in public life and fair judicial action are
the right answer to the check increasing menace of violation of legal rights. Traditional
rule was that the right to move the Supreme Court is available only to those whose
fundamental rights are infringed. According to Black's Law Dictionary- "Public Interest
Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary
interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Public
Interest Litigation can be filed only in a case where "public interest" at large is affected.
Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of public having sufficient interest
for public injury arising from violation of legal rights so as to get judicial redress. In
Vellore citizen Welfare Forum vs., union of India4, there were tanneries discharging
effluents in the river Palar, which was the main source of drinking water in the state. In
this case it was observed that “the traditional concept that development and ecology are
opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable, sustainable development was the answer.
The judicial power in recent times powered by an active interpretation of the
Constitution brought court many judgments having social justice character in the matter
of environmental issues.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974

According to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Pollution means
such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological
properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other
liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water whether directly or indirectly as may or is
likely to create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or
safety or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses or to
the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms. The Act was mainly
enacted for prevention of water pollution. Section 3 of the Act is related to the
constitution of Central Board. The Chairman having special knowledge, and practical
experience in respect of the matters relating to environmental protection and reducing
environmental degradation, heads Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It also
comprises of such other persons and a member-secretary, possessing qualifications,
knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution
control, to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 4 of the Act deals with
constitution of the State Boards, which shall consist of a Chairman and other persons
who shall have the knowledge to control pollution. Section 4 also clearly shows that it is
obligatory on the government for the proper discharge of functions and exercise of
powers under the Act by the members. The main functions of the Central and State
Board are to promote cleanliness of streams and well in the State. Section 13 of the
Water Act provides for the constitution of the Joint Boards by two or more Governments.
The functions and powers of Joint Boards are similar to those of State Board as to
promote cleanliness of water and to prevent pollution. Various measures have been taken
for prevention of water pollution in India. The municipal bodies are entrusted with the
control of solid wastes through treatment plants, throughout the country. Despite all
these efforts, the massive problem of water pollution still remains unabated.

4
AIR 1996SC 2715

4
Judicial approach

In environmental litigations, the anxiety of the courts is to find out appropriate remedies
for the environmental protection is given much importance. In legal sense, pollution of
water means a departure from a normal sense. The normal sense denotes unaffected or
least affected physical and biological conditions of water for human activities. These
are some of the cases where the judiciary has interpreted the cases for the benefit and
prevention of environment and water pollution

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others 5 The Court took notice of an article which
appeared in the Indian Express stating that a private company "Span Motels Pvt. Ltd.",
to which the family of Kamal Nath, a former Minister of Environment and Forests, had
a direct link, had built a motel on the bank of the River Beas on land leased by the
Indian Government in 1981. Span Motels had also encroached upon an additional area
of land adjoining this leasehold area, and this area was later leased out to Span Motels
when Kamal Nath was Minister in 1994. The motel used earthmovers and bulldozers to
turn the course of the River Beas, create a new channel and divert the river's flow. The
course of the river was diverted to save the motel from future floods. Here the
constitutional provisions i.e., Article 21 and 32 and Forest Conservation Act of 1980
were applied.

The Supreme Court of India in this case decided that the prior approval for the
additional leasehold land, given in 1994, is quashed and the Government shall take over
the area and restore it to its original condition. Span Motels will pay compensation to
restore the environment, and the various constructions on the bank of the River Beas
must be removed and reversed. Span motels must show why a pollution fine should not
be imposed; pursuant to the “polluter pays” principle. Regarding the land covered by the
1981 lease, Span Motels shall construct a boundary wall around the area covered by this
lease, and Span Motels shall not encroach upon any part of the river basin. In addition,
this motel shall not discharge untreated effluents into the river. This ruling is based on
the public trust doctrine, under which the Government is the trustee of all natural
resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The Court reviewed
the public trust cases from the United States and noted that under English common law
this doctrine extended only to traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and
fishing, but expressed doubts as to how the doctrine is now being extended to all
ecologically important lands, including freshwater, wetlands and riparian forests.

M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India 6, is a famous case of Ganga water pollution case.
River Ganga is notedfor its historical significance and religious importance and is
considered most sacred by the Hindus in India. A number of cities, towns and villages
belonging to U.P, Bihar, West Bengal etc are located on the banks of the river. Thus, the
Ganga water got polluted as industrial wastes, chemical effluents, human excrete etc are
being discharged into the river. Further, a number of dead bodies are being thrown into
the river at Kasi with a belief that the dead persons could go to heaven directly since
they consider Kasi as holy place and the river as sacred. This Ganga water was polluted
in different ways with huge quantities of effluents. The Supreme Court in this case
directed that whenever applications for licenses to establish new industries are made
5
Supreme court of India (1997) 1 supreme court cases 388
6
AIR1988 SC 1115

5
such applications should be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the
treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the factories and that immediate action
should be taken against the existing industries if they are found responsible for pollution
of water.

In Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar7 the Petitioner filed a public interest petition in terms
of Article 32 of the Constitution, pleading infringement of the right to life guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution, arising from the pollution of the Bokaro river by the
sludge/slurry discharged from the washeries of the Tata Iron and Steel Company
Limited (TISCO). It was alleged that as a result of the release of effluent into the river,
its water is not fit for drinking purposes or for irrigation. The Respondents established
that TISCO and the State Pollution Control Board had complied with the statutory
requirements, and that the Petitioner was motivated by self-interest. The Court observed
that Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The right to life
enshrined in Article 21, includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air
for the full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life, an
affected person or a person genuinely interested in the protection of society would have
recourse to Article 32. Pubic interest litigation envisages legal proceedings for
vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community
that are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity,
poverty or ignorance of law. However, public interest litigation cannot be resorted to
satisfy a personal grudge or enmity. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the
process of Court under Article 32 in the garb of public interest litigation. Since the
instant case was motivated by self-interest, it was accordingly dismissed.

In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. 8 And others, a letter
written to the Court was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. The letter written by Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sanghartsh Samiti, alleged
environmental pollution in the Sarnath area. It was also alleged therein that the
Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and refinery plant are located in the green belt area, touching
three villages and the Sarnath temple of international fame. The smoke and dust emitted
from the chimneys of the mills and the effluents discharged from these plants were
alleged to be causing environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and were
also proving a serious health hazard. It was alleged that people were finding it difficult
to eat and sleep. The Petitioners sought directions from the Court. Having considered
the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court declared that prima facie the
provisions of the relevant Act, namely the Air Pollution Control Act have been
complied with and there is no conduct, which is attributable to the owners leading to
pollution of air or creating ecological imbalances requiring interference by the Supreme
Court. The Court observed, "Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation
of fundamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the
enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Anything that endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in
derogation of laws, the quality of life and living by the people is entitled to recourse of
Art. 32 of the Constitution. But this can only be done by any person interested
genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community. This
weapon as a safeguard must be utilized and invoked by the Court with great deal of
circumspection and caution. Where it appears that this is only a cloak to "feed fact
7
AIR 1991 SC 420
8
AIR 1990 SC 2060

6
ancient grudge" and enmity, this should not only be refused but strongly discouraged.
While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the
duty of the Court to ensure that this weapon under Art. 32 should not be misused or
permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other
genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court. That would be
an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental
rights."

In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. The CESS Appellate Committee and another9,
The Appellant established a thermal power station on the banks of River Chambal,
which consume water drawn from the river for cooling of the plant. The appellant filed
an appeal under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act
1977 in respect of the cess claimed for a particular period. The appellate authority
holding that the appellant was not entitled to a rebate dismissed the appeal. Following
the dismissal of successive appeals and petitions, the appellant appealed to the Supreme
Court challenging the dismissal of the petitions by the Divisional Bench of the Court of
Appeal. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority for re
assessment of the cess and gave further directions, which the Authority was required to
comply with. The Court said that Section 25(1) has nothing to do with a plant installed
for the treatment of effluent, although the grant of consent to a new outlet can be
conditional on the existence of a plant for the satisfactory treatment of effluents, to
safeguard against pollution of water in the stream.

In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India10 and others, public interest litigation was filed
requesting the court to prevent tanneries, which were polluting the River Ganga, from
operating until they installed primary effluent treatment plants. The court passed the
order accordingly. The Court in its judgement quoted the following passages from the
United Nations Conference of the Human Environment held in 1972 in Stockholm:
"Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man made, are essential to his
well being and the enjoyment of basic human rights - even the right to life itself. The
protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects
the well being of peoples and economic development throughout the world, it is the
urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all governments."
"What is needed is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intense but orderly
work...To defend and improve the human environment for present and future
generations has become an imperative goal...Achievement of this environmental goal
will demand the acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by
enterprises and institutions at every level." The Court, while ordering the closure of
certain tanneries observed that it was conscious that the closure of the tanneries might
bring unemployment.

In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and others11. The Petitioner filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court for the prevention of nuisance caused by the pollution of the River
Ganga by tanneries and soap factories on the banks of the river, at Kanpur. The petition
was entertained as public interest litigation to enforce the statutory provisions that
impose duties on the Municipal Authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water
Act. The Supreme Court issued several directives to the Kanpur Municipal Corporation

9
AIR 1990 SC 2060
10
AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1037
11
AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1115

7
to prevent and control pollution of the River Ganga at Kanpur. While making its order
the Court observed that nuisance caused by the pollution of the River Ganga was
widespread and was a serious public nuisance. On account of failure of authorities to
carry out these statutory duties for several years, the water in the River Ganga at Kanpur
has become so polluted that the people either for drinking or bathing can no longer use
it. The Court also pronounced that what they have stated in this case applies mutatis
mutandis to all other Mahapalikas and Municipalities that have jurisdiction over areas
through which the River Ganga flows, and ordered that a copy of its judgment be sent to
all such institutions. The Court also expressed the view that "having regard to the need
for protecting and improving the environment which is considered a fundamental duty
under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Central Government to direct all educational
institutions to teach at least one hour a week lessons relating to the protection and
improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wild life in
the first ten classes"

The Member-Secretary, Kerala State Board for Prevention & Control of Water
Pollution, Kawadiar, Trivandrum vs. the Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving)
Company, Ltd, Kazhikode and others 12. The Cess Act grants rebates in the cess payable
to those who had installed a plant for the treatment of sewage or trade effluent. The
Company claimed that it had installed a treatment plant and was therefore entitled to a
rebate. This claim was declined. The legality of the levy of cess was thereupon
challenged in the writ petitions. The present writ appeals are taken against the findings
of the Judge in the writ petitions. If the plant installed is one, which gives a satisfactory
treatment of the trade effluent, rebate could be given under Section 7 of the Cess Act so
long as the treatment of the effluent is effective from the point of view of the Pollution
Act. The Court was also of the view that the question involved is not a mere
interpretation of a section of a statute but has larger overtones with a direct nexus to the
life and health of the people. A reference to a treaty, protocol or convention is
permissible while interpreting laws, which have a link or background with such
document. The Court surveyed recent international action in the area of environmental
protection, including the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
and national measures to develop environmental legislation and said that these had a
direct connection with the enactment of the comprehensive Pollution Act, which the
Court could not disregard.

In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/S. Modi distillery and other13 M/S. Modi
Distillery situated at Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad was engaged in the manufacture of
industrial alcohol and was discharging highly noxious effluents into the Kali River in
contravention of a statutory requirement to obtain a permit from the Pollution Control
Board. The issue before Court was whether the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Managing
Director and Members of the Board, were liable to be proceeded against under Section
47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in the absence of a
prosecution of the Company owning the industry. The Court held that on a combined
reading of sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 47 of the Act, it had no doubt that the
Chairman, Managing Director, and members of the Board of Directors of Messers Modi
Industries Limited, the Company owning the plant in question, could be prosecuted for
having been in charge of and responsible to the company for the business of the
industrial unit and could be deemed guilty of the offence for which they are charged.
12
AIR 1986 KERALA 256
13
AIR 1988 SC 1128

8
Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
others14, a Petition was field in the SC under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The
petitioners prayed that the Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Tehri Hydro
Development Corporation be restrained from constructing and implementing the Tehri
Hydro Power Project and the Tehri Dam. The main grievance of the Petitioners was that
in preparing the plan for the project the safety aspects have not been adequately taken
into consideration. It was asserted that as the area in which the dam is to be constructed
is prone to earthquakes, the construction of the dam would pose a serious threat to the
life, ecology and the environments of the entire northern India. The Court stated that it
does not possess the requisite expertise to render any final opinion on the rival
contentions of the experts. The Court can only "investigate and adjudicate the question
as to whether the Government was conscious to the inherent danger as pointed out by
the Petitioners and applied its mind to the safety of the dam. We have already given
facts in detail which show that the Government has considered the question on several
occasions in the light of the opinion expressed by the experts". In view of the material
on record, the Court did not find any good reason to issue a direction restraining the
respondents from proceeding with the implementation of the project and accordingly,
the petition was dismissed.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.725/1994, "And Quite Flows Maili Yamuna” Vs Central Pollution
Control Board & Ors. In this case the Central Pollution Control Board was filing
Monitoring Reports in compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Central Pollution
Control Board submitted its monitoring report on water quality on River Yamuna at
Palla, Agra Canal and at Okhla. Besides river Yamuna the Central Board also monitor
the drains at the point prior to discharge into the river Yamuna for assessing the
wastewater quality and pollution load. The Central Board is monitoring the river
Yamuna for its water quality at five locations along with 25 drains in compliance of the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and have submitted results of 71 rounds of
monitoring since 1999.

Pollution in Western Yamuna Canal: The Western Yamuna Canal is the source of raw
water for drinking purposes for capital city Delhi. Earlier, the Central Pollution Control
Board has received several complaints from Delhi Jal Board regarding bad quality of
raw water in Westen Yamuna Canal and thereby ordered closure of Haiderpur and
Nangloi water works for several hours. The officials of the Central Board conducted a
survey of the pollution sources of Western Yamuna Canal. The survey revealed that the
pollution in Western Yamuna Canal is caused due to the industries located in Yamuna
Nagar, Haryana and also from the Municipal Council Yamunagar and Jagadhari
(Sewage Treatment Plants). On the basis of the survey the Central Board has issued
directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protecting) Act, 1986 to the industries
located in the Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. The Industries have filed Writ Petitions in the
Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and got stay orders against the directions
issued by the Central Board. The Central Board has filed status of the Western Yamuna
Canal in the Supreme Court of India vide its affidavit, dated 15.10.2003 the Hon’ble
Court on 15.4.2004 directed that the reports of the Central Pollution Control Board and
Haryana State Pollution Control Board be sent to the Committee in the Ministry of
Environment & Forests for examination. The matter is under consideration of the said
Committee.

14
AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1115

9
Conclusion

The Indian judiciary i.e., the Supreme Court and the High Courts are playing and
important role in the protection of environmental degradation. Parliament has enacted
various laws to deal with the problems of environmental degradation. Today Judges
have to become activist Judges. The Indian judiciary is very effective to protect the
rights of the individuals. Judicial Activism forged new tools and devised new remedies
and with public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has refashioned its institutional
role to readily enforce rights of the people and even impose positive obligations on the
State. The environmental justice in India owes to the higher judiciary. And the higher
judiciary plays a rather stalwart role owing to its unique position and power15, and due
to the circumstances of inefficiency within the executive and the existence of a skeletal
legislative framework16.

15
Upendra Baxi has commented on the Indian Supreme Court as the most powerful court of the world.
Upendra Baxi, “The Travils of Stare Decisis in India”, Butterworths, Included in the Legal Theory Course
Material, Compiled by Prof.Krishna Deva Rao (for internal circulation) GNLU, (Feburary 2006)
16
S.P.Sathe opinion that the Indian parliaments have stopped legislating in the last two decades.
S.P.Sathe, “Extracts from Judicial Activism in India”, Included in the Legal Theory Course Material,
Complied by Prof.Krishna Deva Rao (for internal circulation) GNLU, (February 2006.

10