CASE ANALYSIS By Gautam Goel

Subhash Kumar V. State of Bihar, 1991

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUBHASH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
CITATION: 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
BENCH: JUSTICE K.N SINGH AND JUSTICE N.D. OJHA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9 JANUARY, 1991
PETITIONER: SUBHASH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDANT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

LAWS CONCERNED: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:

Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26. Article 226 and 32 of the constitution,1950

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner filed a public interest litigation claim against two
respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel
Company (TISCO), because they allegedly created health risks to the
public by dumping waste from their factories into the nearby Bokaro
river. The petitioner also claimed that the State Pollution Control Board
had failed to take appropriate measures for preventing this pollution.
2. The petitioner alleged that the respondents, had polluted the river Bokaro
by disposing off the surplus waste from their washeries in the form of
sludge or slurry, rendering the river’s water unfit for drinking and
irrigation. Moreover, this waste gets deposited on the beds of the river
and that includes Plot No. 170, which is the petitioner’s land.
3. The petitioner requested the Court to instruct the respondents to take
urgent measures to prevent river pollution and to initiate legal action
against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
 of 19741. The petitioner further sought interim relief from this Court,
claiming that he be allowed to collect sludge/slurry pouring from the
respondents’ washeries.
4. Bihar State Pollution Board has informed the Court that it has already
instructed the Bokaro Collieries to take immediate and effective steps to
improve the quality of the effluent being discharged into the river.
Further, TISCO has been granted permission to continue discharging
waste into the river but only in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of the
Act.

Issues
 Whether the petitioner could file plea by way of Public Interest Litigation
(PIL)?
 Whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of
sludge/slurry from the washeries of the Respondent's Company?

ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
Subhash Kumar, the petitioner, argued that the water of the river Bokaro is
getting polluted by the discharge of the waste in the form of slurry from the
washers of Tata Iron & Steel Co. limited. He further alleged that the water
flowing to distant places is neither fit for drinking nor for irrigation purposes
and the continuous discharge of sludge poses a heavy amount of risks to the
health of people. It has also asserted that after making continuous requests
no actions have been taken by the State of Bihar and even is granting royalty
on payment of leases. In his plea he has claimed relief for the issue of
direction by directing the defendants including state of Bihar and Bihar
Pollution Control Board.

Arguments of Respondents

1
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974
The respondents' lawyers claimed that the Bihar Pollution Control Board has
taken all appropriate steps to avert contamination of the Bokaro river. The
Board has approved the Tata Iron & Steel Co. to release industrial effluents
from its outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of
Pollution Act, 1974. Before allowing the effluents from the washeries to be
discharged into the Bokaro River, the Board conducted an analysis and
monitored to ensure that the effluents did not contaminate the river. It was also
said that no effluent was discharged into the Bokaro River, that there was no
contamination of the river, and that the fertility of the soil was unaffected. The
Company ensured that no sludge escaped from the pond, since it is a highly
important fuel source. Because the slurry has a high market value, the firm
cannot afford to let it rot in the river, and the company has taken the appropriate
precautions to ensure that no slurry leaks into the river. The counsel also said
that the company followed the rules and guidelines as stated by the State
Pollution Control Board Act, 1974.2

FINAL JUDGEMENT
The court decided that the Board had undertaken reasonable measures to
prevent factory trash from being thrown into the river and factory trash from
being thrown into the river and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. Moreover, it
was determined that an individual requesting to utilize the Court’s jurisdiction
“under article 323 must do so to preserve the fundamental rights of those
harmed, not punish petitioners who harbor hatred or hostility toward him. By
asserting this Court’s unique jurisdiction over personal concerns under the garb
of public interest litigation, the court played a part in discouraging such
applications and ensuring that the judicial system is not obstructed or polluted
by opportunistic litigants. According to the bench, SPCB also took highly
integrative.
Because the Applicant was a strong merchant with a coal trading license, he
urged the Respondents to furnish him with more sludge; when they declined, he
began bullying them. ” Under Article 2264 of the Constitution, the Petitioner
filed many applications with the Patna High Court, demanding authority to
collect sludge from raiyat property”. After examining the evidence, the Court

2
State Pollution Control Board Act, 1974.
3
Article 32 of the constitution.
4
Article 226 of the constitution.
rejected the current case and directed the Applicant to pay the Defendants 5,000
rupees.

CONCLUSION:
By this case study we can surely conclude that the petitioner flied this case due
to his personal grudges and issues under the title of public interest. However,
the interpretations by the Supreme Court over the years has become the basis of
the environmental jurisprudence, which have served the masses; as right to life
is a fundamental right provided under article 21 5 of the Constitution and
guarantees a pollution free environment. One of the benefits of our Constitution
is that it neither confines an individual from upholding his essential rights, nor it
gives full opportunity to an individual in such a way, that he endeavours or
damages such rights himself or against the general public. In the present case
the Court did not consider delving into greater detail as the present petition was
not filed in the public interest instead it has been made in self-interest.

REFERENCESS
1. https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Subhash-Kumar-v.-
State-of-Bihar_JudicateMe.pdf.
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14259-subhash-kumar-v-
s-state-of-bihar.html.
3. https://legalvidhiya.com/subhash-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-and-others-
1991-scr-1-5/.
4. https://lawfoyer.in/case-analysis-subhash-kumar/.
5. https://www.juscorpus.com/subhash-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-and-ors/.

5
Article 21 of the constitution