PROJECT WORK

TOPIC :- MC MEHTA AND DEVELOPMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

INTERNSHIP PERIOD:- 9 - 29 OF AUGUST

TH TH

Submitted by:- submitted to:-

Hitesh kumar valeja mr. sanjay shukla

(student of department of legal registrar, central zone bench,

studies and research, national green trbunal,

barkatullah university, Bhopal) Bhopal)

 Synopsis
Topic Page no.
1. Introduction. 3

2. Meaning of Environment. 3

3. Meaning of environmental jurisprudence. 3-4

4. Environmental Jurisprudence in India. 4-6

5. Hierarchy of environmental jurisprudence in India. 6-7

6. Judicial Activism and Environment Jurisprudence in India . 7-9

7. The Role of Indian Judiciary in Protection of Environment. 9

8. Materials and Methods adopted by Supreme Court. 9-11

9. Judicial Remedies for Environment Pollution in India. 12-15

10. Environmental Protection: The Judicial Approach. 15-16

11. Contribution of MC Mehta in environmental

Jurisprudence in India. 17-18

12. Role of MC Mehta in environmental jurisprudence

in India. 18-19

13. Some of the landmark cases fought by MC Mehta :- 19-23

 MC Mehta (Taj Trapezium matter) v. union of india,1986

 MC Mehta (Shriram food fertilizer case) v. union of india, 1987
 MC Mehta (Kanpur Tanneries) v. union of india,1988
 MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997

14. Role of National Green Tribunal in protection of environment. 24

15. Conclusion. 25
Introduction
Environmental Law is a developing branch of law in India. This growth is
conspicuous by the remarkable activism on part of the judiciary and the
legislature in the latter part of the 20 th century. A large number of socio-
economic problems faced in the nation were discussed by the courts in various
cases over a broad range of issues which cropped up from time to time , with
the eventuality that old laws were sharpened to meet the changing societal
needs. New laws were framed to meet the emerging challenges- the
Environmental Protection Act, 1986 being a watershed.

Meaning of Environment
The word “environment” relates to surroundings. It includes virtually
everything. It can be can defined as anything which may be treated as covering
the physical surroundings that are common to all of us, including air, space,
land, water, plants and wildlife. According to the Webster Dictionary, it is
defined as the “Aggregate of all the external condition and influences affecting
the life and development of an organism.”

As per The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Section 2(a) environment “includes water, air and land and the inter-
relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human
beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property.”

Thus, after analyzing all the above definitions, the basic idea that can be
concluded is that environment means the surroundings in which we live and is
essential for our life.

Meaning of environmental jurisprudence

Environmental jurisprudence is a philosophy of law and human governance that
is based on the idea that humans are only one part of a wider community of
beings and that the welfare of each member of that community is dependent
on the welfare of the Environment as a whole. It states that human
societies will only be viable and flourish if they regulate themselves as part of
this wider Earth community and do so in a way that is consistent with the
fundamental laws or principles that govern how the universe functions.
Environment jurisprudence is intended to provide a philosophical basis for the
development and implementation of human governance systems, which may
include ethics, laws, institutions, policies and practices. It also places an

[3]
emphasis on the internalisation of these insights and on personal practice, in
living in accordance with Environment jurisprudence as a way of life.

Environmental jurisprudence has drawn its knowledge base from different

disciplines of studies like basic sciences, earth science and Common Law
jurisprudence. Study of this discipline is concerned more with enforcement
‘right’, for environmental pollution may affect individuals as well as the public
at large. The impact of pollution may be on the lives of people in the place of
occurrence as well as in a larger geographical territory. Further, the impact
might be even larger on generations to come. Therefore, if pollution is termed
either as a wrong or crime. It requires different understanding of law because
of its very nature, wherein the study of environmental jurisprudence gains
importance.

The specific applications of Environment jurisprudence will vary from society to

society, while sharing common elements. These elements include:

 a recognition that the universe is the source of the fundamental ‘Earth

rights’ of all members of the Earth community, rather than some part of the
human governance system and accordingly these rights cannot be validly
circumscribed or abrogated by human jurisprudence;
 a means of recognising the roles and ‘rights’ of non-human members of the
Earth community and of restraining humans from unjustifiably preventing
them fulfilling those roles;and
 an approach to condoning or disapproving human conduct on the basis of
whether or not the conduct strengthens or weakens the bonds that
constitute the Earth community.

Need for environmental laws

Today we are living in nuclear arena. No one can overlook the harm caused to
the environment by the nuclear bombs, dropped by airplanes belonging to the
United States on the Japanese urban communities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
amid the last phases of World War II in 1945. Day to day innovation and
advancement of technology, apart from development additionally expands the
risk to human life. Accordingly, there arises an intense and an acute need of the
law to keep pace with the need of the society along with individuals. So now
the question of environmental protection is a matter of worldwide concern, it is
not confined to any country or territory.

Environmental Jurisprudence in India

The causes of environmental problems are manifold. Some of them are a direct
result of unfavorable negative impacts of various developmental activities while
some arise due to lack of development itself. These maybe at the global level

[4]
such as global warming and climate change, at local level due to failure of
environmental safeguards and their implementation in projects which lead to
pollution (air, water, noise etc).

“The Supreme Court has held that the right to life as enshrined in Article 21
means something more than survival or animal existence and would include
the right to live with human dignity. It would include the right to minimum
subsistence allowance during suspension and all those aspects which go to
make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.”

This has been asserted time and again by the judiciary. The right to
environment is thus enshrined in the basic framework of law of each and every
country; various laws and checks have been put in place however either by way
of local laws or international treaties to guarantee a clean environment to the
people. Every person must have a basic understanding of the rights and laws to
which he is entitled without which he will never succeed in the pursuit of
happiness.

History of Environmental Conservation

1. Indus Valley Civilization- No direct evidence of environmental

conservation measures but the people of Harappa did not ignore the
environment completely. This is evident through the planned cities with
uniform urban planning, carefully executed layout, water supply &
drainage etc.
2. Mauryan period- Regular and independent Forest Department at the
time of Chandragupta Maurya; it also find mention in Kautilya’s
arthashastra; Wildlife sanctuaries & protection find mention; the
hierarchy was as follows: (1) Pashuvan (Game Forest), (2) Mrigvan (Deer
Forest), (3) Dravyavan (Productive Forest), (4) Hastivan (Elephant
Forest)
3. Gupta Period- The Gupta Kings were also concerned about the state of
forests and wildlife.
4. Many acts were promulgated from 1897 onwards such as the Indian
Fisheries act, Bengal & Bombay Smoke Nuisance Acts, AP Agri, Pest &
Diseases Act, The Factories Act, and Orissa River Pollution & Prevention
Act.
5. 1900-47- Severe and unheeded exploitation of natural resources
without much consideration of ecological consequences
6. 1947- 1970- The priority was industrial development and Environment
was not the major concern; National Parks & Wildlife Sanctuaries were
set up but with a bias towards timber yield & revenue generation;
private forest under govt. control.

[5]
 7. 1970 and thereafter- It marked the beginning of environmental
movement and various legislations were drafted for the protection of
the environment; several international treaties and legislations also
came into being to stress on the need to protect the environment. Some
of these were -The Stockholm Conference, 1972; The Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; The Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980; The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
Establishment of Ministry of Environment & Forests; The Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986; The Rio Conference, 1992; Convention on
Biodiversity (CBD); Basal Convention on the Transboundary Movement
of Hazardous Wastes; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
importance; National Environment Policy 2006; Environmental Impact
Assessment Notification 2006.

Hierarchy of Environmental
Jurisprudence in india

In India, there are several structures right from the Constitution that help in
protecting the environment. These hierarchical levels are explained in the
pyramid.

The legislative framework is provided by the following acts and laws

1. Constitutional provisions
2. General laws – IPC, CrPC
3. Special acts – more than 300 acts such as IFA, WPA, EPA, Air Act, Water Act,
FCA, the Public Liability Insurance Act, the National Environmental Tribunal
Act, the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, National Green
Tribunal 2009
4. Policies – National Environment Policy 2006, National Forest Policy, National
Agriculture Policy

Administrative framework consists of the various enforcement agencies such as

1. MoEF- nodal ministry for environment which sets environmental standards

2. Several enforcement agencies – Central Pollution Control Board, National
River Conservation Authority, National Afforestation & Eco Development
Board, Department of Wasteland Development

The Constitution is full of various provisions that serve as a bedrock for framing
the environmental laws and policies for India. The 42 nd amendment in

[6]
particular was the first instance which highlighted the importance of
environment. The provisions are in the form of;
Fundamental Rights (Arts. 21, 32 & 226)

 Article 21- ‘’ No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.’’ As already discussed, it also
includes the right to environment, most of the PIL’s are due to this
interpretation of Article 21.
 Article 32 & 226- Right to Constitutional remedies.

Directive Principles of the State Policy (Arts. 47, 48A & 49)

 Article 47: The State shall endeavour to raise the level of nutrition and
standard of living and to improve public health.
 Article 48A: To protect and improve the natural environment and to
safeguards forests and wildlife.
 Article 49- To protect and maintain places of artistic and historic interest.

Fundamental Duties (Art. 51A(g))

 To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,

rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures

Judicial Activism and Environmental

Jurisprudence in India : PIL And The
Expansion Of Locus Standi

Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party could personally knock the doors of
justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other person who was not
personally affected could not do so as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved
party. But around 1980, the Indian legal system, particularly the field of
environmental law, underwent a sea change in terms of discarding its
moribund approach and instead, charting out new horizons of social justice.
This period was characterized by not only administrative and legislative
activism but also judicial activism.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has come to stay in India. "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." Contrary to the past practices, today a person acting bona fide

[7]
and having sufficient interest can move the courts for redressing public
enquiry, enforcing public duty, protecting social and collective rights and
interests and vindicating public interest. In course of time there has been a
wave of environmental litigation.

At present most environmental actions in India are brought under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution. The writ procedure is preferred over the conventional suit
because it is speedy, relatively inexpensive and offers direct access to the
highest courts of the land. Nevertheless, class action suits also have their own
advantages. The powers of the Supreme Court to issue directions under Article
32 and that of the high courts under Article 226 have attained greater
significance in environmental litigation. Courts have made use of these powers
to remedy past mala-fides and to check immediate and future assaults on the
environment.

The judicial activism demonstrated by the courts can be classified into two
distinct spheres i.e. procedural and substantive. However the categorization of
judicial innovations into procedural and substantive are neither water-tight nor
mutually exclusive. .There nis almost unanimous consensus regarding the fact
that PIL in India ensured that higher Courts in India get actively drawn into
environmental issues by expanding the rule of locus standi.

In other words the expansion of the concept of locus standi led to some
important consequences which were particularly pertinent especially in
environmental matters. Firstly PIL ensures that there could be several
petitioners for the same set of facts dealing with an environmental hazard or
disaster, the court was able to look at the matter from the point of view of an
environmental problem to be solved, rather than a dispute between two
parties. Secondly, as PIL is concerned with the rights of the community rather
than the individual it is characterized by a non-adversarial approach, the
participation of amicus curiae, the appointment of expert and monitoring
committees by the court, and the issue of detailed interim orders in the form of
continuous mandamus under Articles 32 and 226 by the Supreme Court of
India and the High Courts of the States respectively. Thus the India judiciary has
used PIL as a tool for developing environmental jurisprudence as PIL is
essentially geared towards addressing public environmental interests which
has made environmental law in India more effective.

The expansion of locus standi enabled the Courts in India to entertain a

number of actions related to the environment and the Courts propounded a

[8]
number of significant principles in these cases. These substantive principles
propounded by the Courts will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

The Role of Indian Judiciary in Protection

of Environment in India
The legislative and executive efforts have been notable over the past two
decades towards including the principles of Environmental Protection in the
Legal Jurisprudence in India – most notably the 46th Amendment to the
constitution of India in 1976 which explicitly laid down Environmental
Protection as a part of the Constitutional mandate and the enactment of the
Environment Protection Act of 1986. Though there have been initiatives taken
by the legislature and the executive , the judiciary has taken a lead in this race
through careful judicial thinking of the Supreme court .which has been
providing more tools both qualitative and quantitative to deal with the issues
related to Environment protection . Due to the non- compliance of its own laws
by the State machinery ,the judiciary invented a new method of judiciary –
driven implementation of the regulations in India. The courts have also done
their share by liberally interpreting the various provisions of the Constitution
and other statutes towards ensuring social justice . the “Green Bench” of the
supreme court developed the Principles of Absolute Liability and sustainable
development under the broad ambit of environmental considerations as a well
as innovative techniques like Spot Visits and expert committees.

Materials and Methods adopted by

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has contributed to the environmental jurisprudence in
India through a two pronged approach of interpreting the Constitution and
laying down dicta to protect the environment and also through innovating in
the processes of enforcing these protections such that they do not remain
empty promises .In the first part of the discussion we shall look at the dicta of
the Supreme Court. One of the first steps taken by the Supreme Court of India
was the incorporation of the right to a pollution free environment—to water
and air— for full enjoyment of ‘life’ in the list of rights guaranteed to an Indian
citizen under the expandable vision of Article 21 of the Constitution. This was
done by taking the balancing interest approach to the interpretation of the
Constitution in the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar . Another innovation has
been the development of the “Absolute Liability” Principle in the case of M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India where Justice Bhagwati laid down a stricter principle of
law than the principle of strict liability in the sense that all the exceptions to the
Rylands v. Fletcher rule were not held applicable in this particular principle
applicable to enterprises engaged in hazardous activities and the size of the
industry determined the amount of compensation payable by it. The transition
has been said to be constitutionalism of the tort law.
[9]
 The concept of sustainable development has been introduced in the Indian
judicial scenario by the judges of the Supreme Court including such
international principles in the context of the development that was necessary
in the view of the developing economy that India was and to a certain extent
still is. In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India , the Supreme Court even went so far as to
say that life, public health and ecology is entitled to a priority over
unemployment and rural poverty.

One of the earliest cases where the Supreme Court dealt with the concept of
inter-generational equity was in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh , where the question that arose was
regarding illegal and unauthorized mining damaging and destroying the
local environmental system and causing ecological imbalance. The Apex court
held that some assets are permanent and should not be exhausted in one
generation and also opined that environmental protection and maintaining
ecological balance
should be placed on the same standing as economical development of the econ
omy. The Court after much deliberation ordered the mining work to stop and
held that although this would cause economical loss to the laborers but this
was a price that had to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the rights of
the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of the
ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle,
homes and agricultural land and undue affection of air, water and
environment.

Of the judges who constitxuted the so-called ‘Green Bench’ in the Supreme
Court at
that period of time, a noteworthy mention might be made of Justice Kuldip Sin
gh who delivered the judgement in the Vellore Citizens Forum v. Union of India
case whereby the concept of sustainable development was applied for the
first time in an Indian case. J. Singh had observed in his judgement that
ecological protection and economical development should not necessarily be
seen as radically opposite to each other, rather the answer to the balance
should lie in sustainable development. With this judgement this principle
was adopted to incorporate a customary international law in the India in
environmental jurisprudence.

This shows that the Indian Judges not only interpret law but also make laws by
continually drawing on the wealth of laws developing on the international
scenario and incorporating such fresh and important principles in the Indian
jurisprudence to gradually expand the plethora of laws available in India to
cover any given environmental issue. An important off-shoot of the concept of
sustainable development has been that of the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle. It started
as a principle in International Environmental Law where the polluting party
pays for the damage done to the natural environment.
[10]
This principle favors a curative approach which is concerned with repairing eco
logicaldamage, and is not as bothered with the idea of fault. Once a person is
seen to be guilty, such person is liable to compensate for such acts irrespective
of the fact as to whether he was involved in the development process or not.
Remedying the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable
Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual
sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

The judiciary in India recognized the Principle in the judgment delivered by the
Supreme Court of India in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actionv.UOI & Ors
The Court held that "The Polluter Pays Principle means that absolute liability of
harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution, but also to the cost of restoring environmental degradation.
Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable
development.” In this case a number of private companies operating as
chemical companies were creating hazardous wastes in the soil and polluting
the village area situated nearby without the required licenses. The Court ruled
on the PIL that" Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss
caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he
took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon
the very nature of the activity carried on".

Consequently,the polluting industries were held to be absolutely liable for the

harm caused by them tovillagers in the affected area, etc and they were
ordered to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants
lying in the affected areas.

The"PolluterPays" principle as interpreted by the Court means that the absolute

liability for harm to theenvironment extends not only to compensate the
victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental
degradation.

The polluter pays principle means two things:

1. The polluter should pay for the administration of the pollution control
system;

2. The polluter should pay for the consequences of the pollution

[11]
 Judicial remedies for environment

pollution
The remedies available in India for environmental protection comprise of
tortuous as well as statutory law remedies. The tortuous remedies available are
trespass, nuisance, strict liability and negligence. The statutory remedies
incorporates: Citizen’s suit, e.g.,

 an activity brought under Section 19 of the Environmental (Protection)

Act, 1986,
 an activity under area 133, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.and
 and activity brought under the Section 268 for open irritation, under
Indian Penal Code,1860

Apart from this, a writ petition can be filed under Article 32 in the Supreme
Court of India or under Article 226 in the High Court.

Tortious liability
The Indian judiciary has developed the following tortuous remedies:

Damage

In the recent case of Shriram Gas Leak, involving a leakage of Oleum gas which
resulted in substantial environmental harm to the citizens of Delhi, the Apex
court held that the quantum of damages awarded must be proportionate to
the capacity and magnitude of the polluter to pay. However, the Apex Court
has deviated from this test in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

Injunction

The purpose of injunction is to prevent continuous wrong. The grant of

perpetual injunction is governed by Sec.37 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963.

Nuisance

Nuisance means the act which creates hindrance to the enjoyment of the
person in form of smell, air, noise, etc.

According to Stephen, nuisance is anything done to hurt or annoyance of

lands, tenements of another and not amounting to trespass.

[12]
Nuisance can be divided into two categories:

Private Nuisance – It is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the

use and enjoyment of one’s land.

Public Nuisance – It is an unreasonable interference with a general right of the

public.

Trespass

It means intentional or negligent direct interference with personal or

proprietary rights without lawful excuses.

The two important requirements for trespass are:

1) There must be an intentional or negligent interference with personal or

proprietary rights.

2) The interference with the personal or proprietary rights must be direct rather
than consequential.

Negligence

It connotes failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would
exercise in like circumstances.

Strict Liability

The rule enunciated in Rylands v. Fletcher by Blackburn J. is that the person

who for his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to be a mischief, if it escapes, must keep it as its peril, and if he
does not do so is prima facie even though, he will be answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The doctrine of strict
liability has considerable utility in environmental pollution cases especially
cases dealing with the harm caused by the leakage of hazardous substances.

Some remarkable principles and doctrines

propounded by the Indian judiciary:-
1. Doctrine of Absolute Liability

THE BHOPAL CASE: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union Of India

[13]
In this case, the court held that, where an enterprise is occupied with an
inherently dangerous or a hazardous activity and harm results to anybody by
virtue of a mishap in the operation of such dangerous or naturally unsafe
movement coming about, for instance, in getaway of poisonous gas, the
enterprise is strictly and completely obligated to repay every one of the
individuals who are influenced by the accident and such risk is not subject to
any exemptions. Accordingly, Supreme Court created another trend of
Absolute Liability without any exemption.

2. Polluter Pays Principles

“If anyone intentionally spoils the water of another … let him not only pay
damages, but purify the stream or cistern which contains the water…” – Plato

Polluter Pays Principle has become a very popular concept lately. ‘If you make a
mess, it’s your duty to clean it up ‘- this is the fundamental basis of this slogan. It
should be mentioned that in environment law, the ‘polluter pays principle’ does
not allude to “fault.” Instead, it supports a remedial methodology which is
concerned with repairing natural harm. It’s a rule in international
environmental law where the polluting party pays for the harm or damage
done to the natural environment.

Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India

The Supreme Court has declared that the polluter pays principle is an essential
feature of the sustainable development.

3. Precautionary Principle

The Supreme Court of India, in Vellore Citizens Forum Case, developed the
following three concepts for the precautionary principle:

Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of

environmental degradation

Lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing

measures

Onus of proof is on the actor to show that his action is benign

4. Public Trust Doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources
like air, water, sea and the forests have such a great importance to people as a
whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private
ownership.

M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others

[14]
The public trust doctrine, as discussed by court in this judgment is a part of the
law of the land.

5. Doctrine of Sustainable Development

The World commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its report

prominently known as the ‘Brundtland Report’ named after the Chairman of
the Commission Ms. GH Brundtland highlights the concept of sustainable
development. As per Brundtland Report, Sustainable development signifies ”
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”.There is a need for
the courts to strike a balance between development and environment.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP

The court for the first time dealt with the issue relating to the environment and
development; and held that, it is always to be remembered that these are the
permanent assets of mankind and or not intended to be exhausted in one
generation.

Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that sustainable development has
come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the
quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting
eco- system.

Environmental protection: the judicial

approach

There are number of the following judgments which clearly highlight the active
role of judiciary in environmental protection these are follows:

(a) The right to a wholesome environment

Charan Lal Sahu Case

The Supreme Court in this case said, the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of
the Constitution includes the right to a wholesome environment.

Damodhar Rao v. S. 0. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad

[15]
The Court resorted to the Constitutional mandates under Articles 48A and
51A(g) to support this reasoning and went to the extent of stating that
environmental pollution would be a violation of the fundamental right to life
and personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

(b) Public nuisance: the judicial response

Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand

The judgment of the Supreme Court in instant case is a land mark in the history
of judicial activism in upholding the social justice component of the rule of law
by fixing liability on statutory authorities to discharge their legal obligation to
the people in abating public nuisance and making the environmental pollution
free even if there is a budgetary constraints., J. Krishna Iyer observed that,”
social justice is due to and therefore the people must be able to trigger off the
jurisdiction vested for their benefit to any public functioning.”Thus he
recognized PIL as a Constitutional obligation of the courts.

(c) Judicial relief encompasses compensation to victims

Delhi gas leak case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,

In instant case, the Supreme Court laid down two important principles of law:

1) The power of the Supreme Court to grant remedial relief for a proved
infringement of a fundamental right (in case if Article21) includes the power to
award compensation.

2) The judgment opened a new frontier in the Indian jurisprudence by

introducing a new “no fault” liability standard (absolute liability) for industries
engaged in hazardous activities which has brought about radical changes in
the liability and compensation laws in India. The new standard makes
hazardous industries absolutely liable from the harm resulting from its
activities.

(d) Fundamental right to water

The fundamental right to water has evolved in India, not through legislative
action but through judicial interpretation. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court of India upheld that “Water is the
basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and
human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India … and the
right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental
human rights implicit in the right to life

[16]
Contribution of mc Mehta in environmental
jurisprudence in india
M.C. Mehta’s public interest environmental litigation cases have formed the
foundation for the development of environmental jurisprudence in India, and
indeed, South Asia today.

M.C. Mehta’s cases have established the following seminal principles in Indian
environmental jurisprudence:

 The constitutional right to life extends to the right to a clean and healthy
environment.
 Courts are empowered to grant financial compensation as a remedy for the
infringement of the right to life.
 Polluters should be held absolutely liable to compensate for harm caused by
their hazardous activities.
 Public resources that are sensitive, fragile or of high ecological value should
be maintained and preserved for the public.
 Similarly, the government has a responsibility to prevent environmental
degradation. Even if scientific uncertainty exists, the implementation of
preventative measures should not be delayed wherever there is the
possibility of serious or irreversible damage.
 Green benches should be established in Indian High Courts dealing
specifically with environmental cases.

About MC Mehta
A lawyer by profession and a committed environmentalist by choice, he has
made the fight to protect India’s environment his unending mission. He has
pioneered legal activism for environmental protection and is proof that one
man can make a difference.

Born on October 12, 1946 M C Mehta (Mahesh Chander Mehta) belongs to a

small village in district Rajouri in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (India). It was
here that his love for nature, instilled in him a sense of commitment towards
protecting the environment. He got his education up to primary level in his
village Dhangri. Later, to get higher education he had to join School at Rajouri.
For few years he travelled from his village to School and back by crossing two
rivers and about 15 km. of distance everyday. After his schooling at Rajouri he
moved to Jammu and completed his Post Graduation in Political Science and
Law degree from Jammu University and started his practice in Jammu &
Kashmir High Court. During his stay in Jammu he took active part in social and
political issues. He raised his voice against corruption and motivated students
and youth to fight against discrimination taking place with the Jammu region.
He remained President of The Youth Action Committee and pioneered the

[17]
Social and Political causes. His career as a Supreme Court lawyer began in 1983,
when he migrated to Delhi. In 1984, he began focusing on environmental
litigation.

In the words of Ms Smita Gate “Often described as the One Man Enviro-legal
Brigade, Mr Mehta is probably the only Supreme Court lawyer to have taken up
legal cudgels with the polluting Indian Industries and come out victorious. A
dedicated, fearless and extremely honest man, he pursues his goals with single-
minded devotion. He has been conferred with several prestigious awards. Some
of these are the Governor’s Gold Medal, the Goldman Environmental Prize,
considered on alternative Noble Prize in USA and Europe, the UN’s Global 500
Award for 1993 and above all the Magsaysay Award for 1997.”

Role of mc Mehta in environmental

jurisprudence in india

The right to humane and healthy environment is seen indirectly approved in

the MC Mehta group of cases, decided subsequently by the Supreme Court.

The first MC Mehta case enlarged the scope of the right to live and said that the
state had power to restrict hazardous industrial activities for the purpose of
protecting the right of the people to live in a healthy environment. Although
the second MC Mehta case modified some of the conditions, the third MC
Mehta case posed an important question concerning the amount of
compensation payable to the victims affected by the leakage of oleum gas from
the factory. The Court held that it could entertain a petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution and lay down the principles on which the quantum of
compensation could be computed and paid. This case is significant as it evolved
a new jurisprudence of liability to the victims of pollution caused by an industry
engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous activities. The fourth MC
Mehta case was regarding the tanning industries located on the banks of
Ganga was alleged to be polluting the river. The Court issued directions to
them to set up effluent plants within six months from the date of the order. It
was specified that failure to do so would entail closure of business.

The four MC Mehta cases came before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of
the constitution on the initiative of the public-spirited lawyer. He filed the
petitions on the behalf of the people who were affected or likely to be affected
by some action or inaction. The petitioner had no direct interest in the subject

[18]
and had suffered no personal injury. Still standing to sue was not raised at the
threshold question to be decided by the Court

Some of the landmark cases fought by mc

Mehta:-

 MC MEHTA ( Taj Trapezium Matter) V. UNION

OF INDIA , 1986
FACTS:-

In this case a petition was filed to the threat of the deteriorating beauty of Taj
Mahal to invoke the Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act 1981 and
Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act 1974 and Environment
Protection Act 1986 for the purpose of relocation of the 292 industries to
prevent emissions generated by coke or coal consuming industries having a
damaging effect on Taj and people living in the Taj Trapezium Zone, and
further to direct them to change over to natural gas as industrial fuel.
According to the petitioner, the foundries, chemical/hazardous industries and
the refinery at Mathura were the major sources of damage to the Taj. The
sulphur dioxide emitted by the Mathura Refinery and the industries when
combined with Oxygen-with the aid of moisture in the atmosphere formed
sulphuric acid called “Acid rain” which had a corroding effect on the gleaming
white marble. Industrial/Refinery emissions, brick-kilns, vehicular traffic and
generator-sets were primarily responsible for polluting the ambient air around
Taj Trapezium (TTZ).

Judgement:-

 Applying the above mentioned principles and the Articles, the Supreme
Court ordered the 292 industries which were the causing pollution in
TTZ, to switch over to natural gas for natural fuel.
 The industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connection for
any reason, were required to stop functioning with the aid coke and coal
in TTZ. .
 Also the workmen employed in the 292 industries were given certain
rights and benefits:

[19]
 (a) The workmen shall have continuity of employment at the new town
and place where the industry is shifted. The terms and conditions of their
employment shall not be altered to their detriment.

(b) The period between the closure of the industry in Agra and its restart
at the place of relocation shall be treated as active employment and the
workmen shall be paid their full wages with continuity of service.

(c) All those workmen who agree to shift with the industry shall be given
one year's wages as "shifting bonus" to help them settle at the new location.
The said bonus shall be paid before 31.1.1998.

(d) The workmen employed in the industries who do not intend to

relocate/obtain Natural Gas and opt for closure they have been in continuous
service (as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not
less than one year in the industries concerned before the said date. They shall
be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, six years' wages as additional
compensation.

(e) The compensation-payable to the workmen in terms of this judgment

shall be paid by the Management within two months of the retrenchment.

(f) The gratuity amount payable to any workman shall be paid in

addition."

 M.C MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA , 1987 (Shriram

food fertilizer case)
Facts:-
 M.C Mehta, the petitioner in this case was an advocate and leading
consumer activist. He filed a public interest litigation requesting the
courts to lay down the norms for determining the liability of enterprises
engaged in the manufacture and sale of hazardous products and the
closure of ‘Shriram’ on the ground that it was hazardous to the
community. The enterprise in question is Shriram food & fertilizers
industries (referred to as Shriram) which is a caustic chlorine plant run by
the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd commissioned in 1949. During the pendency of
the petition filed by M.C Mehta, the Delhi administration pursuant to a
question raised in the parliament about the hazardous nature of the
these enterprises appointed an expert committee. This committee
headed by Mr. Manmohan Singh made an extensive inquiry and

[20]
 submitted a detailed report to the government outlining various
recommendations to minimize the hazards that complied with pollution
control and safety measures.
 On the 4th of December, 1985, a major leakage of Oleum gas took place
from one of the units within the plant, affecting not only its employees
but also those who resided around the plant. This occurred during the
pendency of the first petition requesting the closure of the caustic
chlorine plant on account of its hazardous nature.Two days later, on the
6th of December 1985, another leakage took place although a minor
one when Oleum gas leaked out again from the joints of a pipe in the
plant.
 The Delhi administration had immediately responded to the crisis by
issuing an order dated 6th dec 1985 passed by the district magistrate,
Delhi directing Shriram to stop the manufacture and processing of
hazardous and lethal chemical and gases.
 A second set of writ petitions were filed by the Petitioner under Article
32 of the Constitution, which provides for a writ against the State in case
of breach of fundamental rights and to entertain appropriate
compensation claims. The court directed two teams of experts, namely
the Nilay Singh Choudhary committee appointed by the court and the
Agarwal committee appointed by the petitioner to ascertain whether
the recommendations of the Manmohan Singh committee (set up during
the pendency of the first petition that requested the closure of the
shriram units) has been implemented in accordance with the pollution
control and safety measures.
 A third committee, the Seturam committee was also appointed by the
Lt.Governor of Delhi to carry out an on-the-spot inspection and make its
recommendations. Persons affected by the gas leak (which in this case
were nearly 2 lakh people within a three kilometer radius) were also
allowed to file compensation claims within a given period of time with
the Chief metropolitan magistrate.

Judgement
The Court held that the government exercised control on all those activities of
Shriram which jeopardized public interest and that not only did the
government exercise “extensive functional control” over Shriram but also
assisted it financially in terms of loans and overdrafts. The Court also held that
Shriram was engaged in an activity “which has the potential to invade the right
to life of large sections of people.” The Court, however, declined to rule
whether Shriram was “State” for the purposes of Article 21, preferring to leave
the questions open for a later date.

[21]
Regarding the liability of a corporation due to injurious consequences of
hazardous activities conducted by it, the Court held that a corporation “owes
an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm
results to anyone on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous nature
of the activity which it has undertaken.” Extending the principle of strict
liability in Rylands v. Fletcher, the Court, for the first time, enunciated the
principle of absolute liability of corporations when they undertake hazardous
and dangerous activity. Such activity, according to the Court, should be
allowed only on the condition that the enterprise “indemnifies all those who
suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not.”

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur

Tanneries),1988
Facts
In the original petition of 1985, Mehta requested the court to order the leather
tanneries of the Jajmau district of Kanpur to stop discharging their untreated
effluent into the river. He also claimed that the Municipal Corporation of
Kanpur was not undertaking treatment of domestic sewage. The petition
named eighty-nine respondents; among them were seventy-five tanneries of
the Jajmau district of the city, the Union of India, the Chair of the Central
Pollution Control Board, the Chair of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
and the Indian Standards Institute

Judgement
On the effects of water pollution, the Court made particular mention of the
increased incidence of water-borne disease that resulted from poor water
management and the consequent risks such diseases posed to the communities
which shared the water source. Regarding the benefits of preventing pollution,
the Court stressed that prevention of water pollution will result in a “general
improvement in the standard of health of the population.” It further noted that
the process of prevention could potentially be used as manure and thus help
the agriculture industry. The Court also held that measures of prevention not
being unduly costly were within the reach of, both, developing and developed
nations.

On the issue of responsibility for the pollution, the Court held that it was the
responsibility of industries to ensure that their industrial waste was treated
before being discharged. It held that industrial licences should be issued only
when the industry can demonstrate that it has adequate provision for the
treatment of trade effluents. It further held that action should be taken against
existing industries if they were found responsible for water pollution.

[22]
The Court also held the Mahapalika responsible for not taking steps to check
pollution and for not abiding by its statutory duties. It directed the Mahapalika
to take immediate steps to put schemes and policies in place to check pollution
and to submit proposals concerning sewage treatment works of the Board’s
sewage treatment facility in the area within six months of the order.

The Court further held that under Article 51A of the Constitution, the Central
Government had a duty to prevent pollution and improve the environment. It
was, therefore, the Central Government’s duty to increase awareness in the
nation by providing for compulsory study of the natural environment. The
Court directed the Central Government to publish and distribute books, free of
cost, for this purpose..

The Court held that the judgment was to apply to all Mahapalikas “which have
jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows.”

MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath , 1997

Facts
In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Span motel, owned by the family members of
Shri Kamal Nath, Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India diverted
the Course of river Beas to beautify the motel and also encroached upon some
forest land. The apex court ordered the management of the Span motel to
hand over forest land to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and remove all sorts of
encroachments.

Judgement
The Court delivered a land mark judgment and established principle of
exemplary damages for the first time in India. The Court said that polluter must
pay to reverse the damage caused by his act and imposed a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs
(Rs 10,00,000) on the Span motel as exemplary damages. The Supreme Court of
India recognized Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.

[23]
Role of national green tribunal in
protection of environment
National Green Tribunal was set up under National Green Tribunal Act,2010
with an aim to provide protection to environment , conservation of forests and
other natural resources along with enforcement of legal rights for environment
and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property.
National Green Tribunal (NGT) had been instrumental in dealing with the
issues related to environment, ecology, biodiversity, pollution etc in the larger
interest of the public. NGT's judgement are based on the principle of natural
justice.
After decades of unchecked exploitation and deterioration of natural resources
now it’s time for NGT’s role in addressing problem of environmental pollution
and degradation. NGT since its inception has taken various steps in order to
reduce the menace of pollution and other activities adversely impacting the
environment
Some of the main judgement of NGTs are:
-- Banning any diesel vehicle of more than 10 years old in Delhi and NCR
region.
-- Penalising the Construction companies in Bellandur wetland in Banglore.
-- Proposed plan for rejuvenating the Yamuna river for 52km stretch in Delhi
and UP region.
-- Cancelling clearance of CG coal mine, Vedanta and POSCO in Odisha.
--NGT cancelled clearance of a Mining project by Gogte Minerals in of
Maharashtra

It not only deals with violation of environmental laws, but provide for
compensation, relief and restoration of ecology according to principle of
“polluter pays” and power to enforce “precautionary principle” and most
importantly sustainable development. NGT has lived upto its expectations.
Many judgment like Posco case judgment for sustainable development in
favour of local communities, Goa foundation case for implementation of
western ghat expert panel report, sand mining order put a ban on all forms of
Illegal River and Ocean bed sand mining which were rampant across the
country are very important in sustainable development and environmental
protection.

[24]
Conclusion
India has a prominent environmental heritage which can be attributable to its
biodiversity. However industrial and economic development as well as
indiscretions in the part of certain industries as well as the lax attitude of the
state in certain circumstances has had an adverse effect on the environment as
well as a number of communities who are dependent on them. Hence there
was an imperative need for the judiciary to step onto the plate and take an
activist stance to prevent further depletion of the valuable biodiversity of the
country. The Courts have been successful in achieving this goal. It has used
principles of international environmental law and constitutional provisions as
tools for the furtherance of the cause of the environment. It is indeed not an
overstatement to claim the environmental jurisprudence in this country can to
a great extent be attributable to the acts of the judiciary in the last two
decades. It is interesting to note that the apex Court has also acknowledged
the crucial link between the environment and the rights of communities as
well. The Supreme Court has recognized the nexus between environmental
protection and human rights in Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v MV
Naydu. [47] The Hon’ble court observed that environmental concerns under
Article 32 and 226 are of equal significance to Human Rights concerns as both
can be traced back to the protection of right to life and liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution. Thus it would not be inaccurate to conclude that the Courts
have been instrumental in establishing a holistic framework of environmental
law geared towards achieving the ends of justice.
Thus, after the analysis of above cases, we find that, the Supreme Court is, at
the present time, stretching the different legal provisions for environmental
protection. In this way, the judiciary tries to fill in the gaps where there is
laciness of the legislation. These new innovations and developments in India by
the judicial activism open the numerous approaches to help the country. In
India, the courts are extremely cognizant and cautious about the special nature
of environmental rights, considering that the loss of natural resources can’t be
renewed.

[25]