Environmental Law
6th March 2024
Class Notes
Cases Discussed
1)MC Mehta vs. Union of India 1986
2)M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors 1988
1) MC Mehta vs. Union of India 1986
Introduction:
The case of M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, decided by the
Supreme Court of India on 20 December 1986, revolves around issues related
to environmental pollution caused by hazardous industries. The case involves
a petition seeking the closure of units of Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries
due to the hazards they pose to the community. Subsequent events involving
the escape of oleum gas led to applications for compensation by affected
individuals.
Brief Background:
The case originated from a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. During the proceedings, there was an escape of oleum gas from
one of the units of Shriram, giving rise to applications for compensation by the
Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association.
Facts:
- The petition sought closure of hazardous units of Shriram Foods & Fertilizer
Industries.
- Escape of oleum gas from one of the units raised concerns.
- Applications for compensation were filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association.
Issues:
1. Scope and ambit of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32.
2. Availability of Article 21 against private corporations.
3. Liability of enterprises in hazardous industries for accidents.
4. Applicability of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher in India.
5. Interpretation of the Constitution and statutes in light of changing norms.
Judgement:
The Court allowed Shriram to restart some operations subject to conditions. It
directed the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to assist victims in claiming
compensation and the Delhi Administration to provide necessary funds.
Analysis of Important Concepts:
1. Article 32: Court's power to protect fundamental rights and provide
remedies.
2. Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty; importance against private
corporations.
3. State Action: Determining public vs. private actions affecting fundamental
rights.
4. Instrumentality of State: Criteria for considering entities as part of the State;
constitutional obligations.
5. Environmental Law: Liability of hazardous industries for accidents;
compensatory measures.
Conclusion
The case exemplifies the Court's proactive role in protecting fundamental
rights and ensuring accountability in hazardous industries. It highlights the
evolving jurisprudence to address contemporary challenges and underlines the
importance of environmental protection in India's legal framework.
2) M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors 1988
Introduction
The case of M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 deals with the issue of
pollution of the river Ganga, specifically in Kanpur, and the responsibilities of the municipal
bodies and industries in controlling such pollution. The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, filed a Public
Interest Litigation against the pollution of the river Ganga to protect the lives of the people
using the Ganga water.
Brief Background
The case was taken up following directions issued by the court in a previous case related to
industries near Kanpur polluting the river Ganga. It focused on the responsibilities of the
Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika in controlling pollution in the river.
Facts
- Kanpur was discharging 274.50 million litres of sewage water per day into the river Ganga,
causing high levels of pollution.
- Sewer cleaning in Kanpur was not done systematically, leading to malfunctioning and
choking of the city sewerage system.
- Pollution in the river Ganga at Kanpur was of the highest degree, causing health risks to
those using the water for drinking and bathing.
Issues
The main issues in the case included the responsibility of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika in
controlling pollution in the river Ganga, failure to submit proposals for sewage treatment
works, and the overall pollution levels in the river affecting public health.
Relevant Rules
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959
- Various provisions related to duties and powers of municipal bodies for pollution control
Judgement and Analysis
The Court held that the pollution of the river Ganga was a public nuisance affecting the
community at large. The petitioner had the right to enforce statutory provisions imposing
duties on municipal authorities and Boards under the Water Act. The Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika was directed to submit proposals for sewage treatment works, take action against
pollution sources, and improve sanitation facilities.
Important Concepts and Case Laws
- Public Interest Litigation: Empowering individuals to raise public concerns related to
environmental issues.
- Water Pollution: Impact on public health, environment, and the necessity of pollution
control measures.
- Municipal Responsibilities: Duties of local bodies in maintaining cleanliness and preventing
pollution.
- Riparian Rights: Rights of individuals affected by pollution of water bodies.
Conclusion
The Court's judgement highlighted the critical need for pollution control measures in Kanpur
to safeguard public health and the environment. The case underscored the importance of
enforcing statutory provisions and municipal responsibilities in preventing water pollution
and ensuring clean water sources for the community.
