GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR, C.G.

SCHOOL OF LAW

PROJECT ON:

A Critical Analysis of M. C. Mehta v. Union of

India (1997) 2 SCC 353

SUBMITTED TO:
Mrs. AFROSE QURAISHI
Assistant Professor
PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERING

SUBMITTED BY:
AMIYA BHUSHAN
B.A. LL.B.
10th Semester
ROLL N0. 16001105
1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It feels great pleasure in submitting this research project to Mrs. AFROSE

QURAISHI, Asst. Professor (PIL), without whose guidance this project would
not have been completed successfully.

Next, I would like to sincerely thank my seniors, friends and family

members, whose suggestions and guidance assisted me throughout the
entire tenure of making the project. I would also like to express my special
thanks to those original thinkers, whom I have taken the privilege to quote.

Last but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude
towards the examiner who would take pains to go through the project. Though a
lot of care has been taken, there may be scope for some improvement. All
criticism and suggestions are kindly invited.

AMIYA BHUSHAN

B.A.LL.B

10th Semester

2
 CERTIFICATE

I am glad to submit this project report on “A Critical Analysis of M. C. Mehta

v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353” as a part of my academic assignment. The
project is based on Research methodology and further discusses the doctrinal
method. I think this would be significant for academic purposes as well as prove
informative to all the readers.

Here though I declare that this paper is an original piece of research and the
borrowed text and ideas have been duly acknowledged.

Faculty Signature

________________

3
 DECLARATION

I, AMIYA BHUSHAN, BA-LLB 10th Semester of GURU GHASIDAS

UNIVERSITY do hereby declare that this project is my original work and I
have not copied this project or any part thereof from any source without
acknowledgement.

I am highly indebted to the authors of the books that I have referred in my

project as well as all the writers of all the articles and the owners of the
information taken from the website for it.

It is only because of their contribution and proper guidance of my faculty

advisor Assist. Prof. Mrs. AFROSE QURAISHI that I became able to gather
light on the subject.

AMIYA BHUSHAN

B.A.LL.B

10th Semester

4
 TOPIC: - M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

5. PRINCIPLES AND LAWS PERTAINING TO THE CASE

6. JUDGMENT

7. CONCLUSION

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

5
 TOPIC:-

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353

ABSTRACT:

This case is popularly known as the Taj Trapezium case. Taj Trapezium refers to an area of
10,400 sq. km. trapezium shaped area around Taj Mahal covering five districts in the region
of Agra. Taj Mahal is one of the most popular and beautiful monuments of the world. Taj is
one of the best examples of the Mughal architecture in India. It was declared as a UNESCO
World Heritage Site in 1983. In 1984, M.C. Mehta, a public interest lawyer visited Taj
Mahal. He saw that the monument’s marble had turned yellow and was pitted as a result of
pollutants from nearby industries. This compelled Mehta to file this petition before the
Supreme Court. The writ petition was attached with the report of the Expert Committee
called “Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery” (Varadharajan Committee)
published by the Government of India in 1978. The report indicated the sources of pollution
in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

6
INTRODUCTION:

The Taj Mahal, an ivory-white marble mausoleum, is acclaimed to be one of the most
priceless national monuments, of surpassing beauty and worth, a glorious tribute to man’s
achievement in Architecture and Engineering. However, the Taj is threatened with
deterioration and damage not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing
social and economic conditions which exacerbate the situation. The Taj, a monument of
international repute, is on its way to degradation due to atmospheric pollution. The
degradation of the Taj Mahal led M.C. Mehta, an environmentalist and a public interest
attorney to file a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court in 1984. The petitioner
sought appropriate directions to authorities concerned to take immediate steps to stop air
pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and save the Taj Mahal.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The ‘Taj Trapezium Zone’ (TTZ) referred to in the case is a 10,400 sq.km trapezium-shaped
area covering the five districts of the Agra region. According to the petitioner, the foundries,
chemical/hazardous industries and the refinery at Mathura are the major sources of pollution
in Agra Region as stated in the report of the Central Pollution Control Board. The Sulphur
Dioxide emitted by the Mathura Refinery and other industries when combined with Oxygen
with the help of moisture in the atmosphere forms sulphuric acid also called “Acid rain”
which has a corroding effect on the gleaming white marble. Industrial emissions, brick-kilns,
vehicular traffic and generator-sets are principally responsible for polluting the ambient air
around Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). The petitioner averred that the white marble has yellowed
and blackened in places and the decay is more apparent inside. In this case, the Supreme
Court examined several reports presented by different stakeholders. The report by the
Varadharajan Committee called “Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery”
published in 1978 was examined. The report concluded that the sources of pollution in the
Agra region were all coal users. The Committee recommended the relocation of existing
small industries and underscored the use of clean technologies. The National Environment
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) gave an “Overview Report” in 1990 observing that
there was high impact of the air quality on the Taj due to the rapid industrial development of
Agra-Mathura region resulting in acidic emissions into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. As
a result of this petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed a series of orders from

7
1993. On 8-1-1993, the Supreme court directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board (the Board)
to get a survey done of the area and prepare a list of all the industries and foundries which are
the sources of pollution in the area. The Board accordingly filed an affidavit dated 3-5-1993
reporting the findings of its survey. It categorized the industries and reported that there were
total of 511 industries in the given area. Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 8-1-1993, notices
were issued to all these industries to install anti-pollution mechanisms. NEERI in its report
submitted in October 1993 recommended the use of natural gas as an alternative. The Court
by the order dated 11-2-1994 asked NEERI to examine the possibility of using Propane or
any other safe fuel instead of coal/coke by the industries in the TTZ. The Court on 11-4-1994
examined the NEERI Report dated July 1993 which found that the industries in the TTZ were
the main sources of pollution causing damage to the Taj. Pursuant to the Order dated 11-4-
1994, the MoEF appointed Varadharajan Committee submitted its report regarding
preservation of Taj Mahal and Agra monuments in two volumes. The Supreme Court
examined the NEERI Report dated July 1993 and the Varadharajan Committee Report, both
of which, suggested the relocation of the polluting industries situated in the Taj Trapezium to
an area outside the TTZ. The Supreme Court directed the MoEF to examine both the reports
and indicate the measures the Ministry intended to take to preserve the Taj Mahal. The Court
subsequently passed an order indicating that in a phased manner, the industries located in
Agra be relocated out of TTZ.
The Supreme Court on 14-3-1996 directed the GAIL, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and the
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation to identify industrial areas outside the TTZ
which would be connected with the gas supply network. The Court held that those industries
which were not in a position to get gas connections or which were otherwise polluting may
have to be relocated outside the TTZ. There were four NEERI reports, two Varadharajan
reports and several reports by the Board which were placed on record before the Hon’ble
Court. After examining all the reports and taking into consideration other material on the
record, the Supreme Court held that the industries in the TTZ were active contributors to the
air pollution in the said area. NEERI and Varadharajan Reports had specifically
recommended the relocation of industries from the TTZ.

8
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

 The foundries, chemical industries, and the refinery are the major sources of the

damage to the Taj Mahal. Gases like Sulphur-dioxide emitted by these industries

combine with Oxygen with the help of moisture in the atmosphere and result in

“Acid Rain”. This has a corroding effect on the marble of the Taj Mahal.

 Damage to the marble used in the Taj Mahal is visible. A yellow pallor pervades the

entire monument. At some places the yellow spots are magnified by ugly brown

and black spots.

 Taj Mahal is a monument of international repute. However, it is on its way to

degradation due to atmospheric pollution. Thus, the petitioner sought directions

from the Court to the authorities to take effective measures against the concerned

polluters.

PRINCIPLES AND LAWS PERTAINING TO THIS CASE:

 The Precautionary Principle was taken in to consideration. In this

principle certain environment measures were taken by the state

government and the statutory authorities. According to this principle

anticipation, prevention and attack are the causes of environmental

degradation. In case of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific

certainity should not be considered a reason for postponing the measures

to prevent environmental degradation.

9
  The polluters pay principle was defined in the case of Vellore Citizens

Welfare Forum v Union of India. According to this principle, the liability

for harm to the environment extends not only towards compensation but

also to restore the environmental degradation.

 The three enactments were considered : The Water (prevention and

Control of pollution) Act, 1974 ( the Water Act), the Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment

protection Act, 1986 (the Environment Act).

 Article 21 of the constitution of India guarantees protection of life and

personal liberty. Also, Article 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the constitution state

that raising the standard of public health and protection of natural

environment.

JUDGMENT:

The final judgment was delivered on 30th December 1996 by a Division Bench comprising of
Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Faizan Uddin. The Court applied the principle of
Sustainable Development in this case observing that there needs to be a balance between
economic development and environmental protection. The Court indicated that relocation of
the industries from TTZ was to be resorted to only if Natural Gas was not
acceptable/available by/to the industries as a substitute for coke/coal. Although the Board had
placed on record a list of 510 industries which were responsible for air pollution, the Supreme
Court confined the order only to 292 industries located and operating in Agra. The industries
operating in TTZ which were given gas connections need not relocate. The Court reaffirmed
the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” laid down in Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum v. Union of India . The ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ has been held to be a sound
principle by the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India.
Remediation of the damaged environment is a part of the procedure of ‘Sustainable
Development’ and as such the polluter would be liable to compensate the individual sufferers

10
as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Court relied upon Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and also upon
directive principles of state policy and fundamental duties enshrined under Articles 47, 48-A
and 51-A (g) of the Constitution. Apart from the constitutional mandate to protect and
improve the environment, the Court also relied upon several statutory enactments such as The
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In view of the above-
mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions, the Court was of the view that the
Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environmental law of
the land. Based on the reports of various authorities mentioned in this judgment, Supreme
Court had reached the finding that the emissions generated by the coke/coal consuming
industries were air-pollutants and had damaging effect on the Taj and also to the people
living in the TTZ.

In view of the precautionary principle relied upon by the Court, the environmental measures
should anticipate, avert and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The “onus of
proof” was on an industry to show that its operation with the aid of coke or coal was
environmentally benign. It was, rather, proved beyond uncertainty that the emissions
generated by the use of coke/coal by the industries in TTZ were the main polluters of the
ambient air.
The court held that the above-mentioned 292 industries shall as per the schedule indicated
change-over to natural gas as an industrial-fuel and the industries which were not in a
position to get gas connections for any reason would stop functioning with the aid of
coke/coal in the TTZ and may relocate themselves as per the orders given by the Supreme
Court.

11
CONCLUSION:

In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court espoused the cause of protection of national
heritages such as the Taj Mahal from deterioration and damage due to atmospheric and
environmental pollution. The Court based its judgement on the Precautionary Principle and
Polluter Pays Principle, thereby, making them an integral part of the environmental
jurisprudence of our country. The Supreme Court has assumed a proactive role and made
liberal use of the public interest litigation in protecting fundamental environmental interests.
The judicial activism exercised by the Supreme Court for protection of the environment in
this case demonstrates the increasing significance of environmental litigation in India.

12
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

WEBSITES REFERRED:

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1904350/#:~:text=Union%20of%20India
%20%26%20Ors.%2C,taken%20by%20the%20concerned%20authorities.

 https://elsjnuals.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/m-c-mehta-taj-trapezium-matter-v-union-
of-india1997-2-scc-353-before-the-supreme-court-of-india-writ-petition-civil-no-
13381-of-1984-decided-on-30-12-1996/

 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180092713e1794796f915

13