UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED TO
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEGREE OF B.B.A. LL.B.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM vs. SHRI VARDICHAN
AND ORS. (AIR 1980 SC 1622) – CASE COMMENTARY
SUBMITTED BY: MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ENROLMENT NUMBER: 03816503521
COURSE & SEMESTER: B.B.A. LL.B. (5th SEMESTER)
SUBMITTED TO: PROF. DR. AMAR PAL SINGH
on 14 November, 2023
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
NEW DELHI
2023
MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL,
RATLAM
VS.
SHRI VARDICHAN
AND ORS.
CASE DETAILS
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1622
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 2856 of 1979
Petitioner: Municipal Council, Ratlam
Respondent: Shri Vardichan and Ors.
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: O. Chinnappa Reddy and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ
Court: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Theme: Obligation of statutory bodies in environment cases using the public nuisance doctrine
in the CrPC.
Subject: Environment law, Criminal Procedure Code
AN OVERVIEW
This case deals with environmental concerns and establishes statutory entities' obligations
through the application of the CrPC's public nuisance concept. The years 1970s and 1980s
are significant in terms of the environment's development as a fundamental human right. In
the previous ten years, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972
spurred international cooperation in the field of environmental issues, and Mrs. Gandhi, the
country's prime minister at the time, demonstrated proactive leadership in this regard. In the
subsequent decade, the country's highest court and lower courts developed new
environmental jurisprudence. It is undeniable that the judges engaged in a certain level of
judicial activism when they interpreted the policies of the government and obligations of the
statutory bodies.
The constitution was amended to include several additional clauses, such as Article 48A
(DPSP) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties). Through the Maneka Gandhi case, the
concept of procedural justice was simultaneously enlarged to include the greater substantive
right to life enshrined in A.21 of the constitution. In a way, this was beneficial because our
constitution does not guarantee a basic right to the environment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• The facts of the case concern Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, where open drains were
causing foul odours that caused problems for the locals. The overflow of distillery
waste into the sewers, which posed a health risk to the general population, was one
of the main causes. Due to the area's slum population and shortage of restrooms,
incidents of open defecation have also been documented.
• The residents contacted the executive magistrate to address the issue considering the
circumstances. In order to prevent open defecation, the court issued an order
mandating that the municipality devise a plan or programme to remove the drain and
build new ones along with latrines within six months.
• However, the municipality displayed inability to comply with the order due to lack
of funds and the matter came before this hon’ble court.
STATUTES
• THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, 1950: Art. 38, 47, 48A & 51A(g).
• THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860: Sec. 188
• THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: Sec. 133
• THE M.P. MNUICIPALITIES ACT, 1961: Sec. 123
ISSUES
• Whether the municipality’s financial inability to implement the programme
exonerated it from statutory liability?
• Whether by affirmative action a court can compel a statutory body to carry out duty
towards community to have a proper sanitation facility at greater cost?
KEY OBSERVATIONS
Justice Krishna Iyer identified the provisions in the IPC and CrPC relating to the law of
public nuisance and interpreted them in the current case.
• Firstly, as far as the statutory obligation goes, the municipality cannot shy away from
its responsibility in violation of its rule book/legislation which puts a positive duty
on it.
• Secondly, the court considered the aspect of public nuisance in contravention of
Section 133. of CrPC.
S.133 to S.143 of CrPC are unique provisions which lay down procedural as well as
substantive law. They are also called “summary remedies”. Section 133 lays down the
powers of Magistrate/Sub Div. Magistrate along with the process where a “conditional
order” can be given. For instance, one can really compel a police officer to take action which
can be passed on to the magistrate who issues show cause notice as to the reason asking the
violator why the conditional order shouldn’t be passed. He needs to appear before the
magistrate for the same. This order can be subsequently vacated (if compiled with) otherwise
can be made permanent.
A public authority’s direction cannot be defined and if not followed is punishable u/s 188 of
the IPC 1860. S.188 of the IPC, mandates the satisfaction of following ingredients to
constitute a violation: -
▪ A lawful order promulgated by an authority/public servant
▪ Knowledge of the order
▪ Disobedience of that order
▪ Result likely to follow due to disobedience of such order.
For it to constitute an offence under this section, disobedience should have a consequence
attached1 like annoyance or obstruction. In this case, the consequence is closely related to
public nuisance as non-compliance of the magistrate’s order would lead to health and
environmental issues.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The municipality took the usual defence taken against this section that the order was wrong
in the sense that they lacked funds. The court construed this right of the citizens as a “human
right” and lack of funds is no excuse which can stand against such a right.
Court observed that order u/s 133 CrPC is obligatory and mandatory for the municipality to
abide by and the plea of financial inability is totally unjustified in such cases where public
nuisance is caused. This section also furthered the cause of social justice and rule of law in
lights of international developments and the position India took concerning the environment.
Therefore, the municipality was directed to come out with a plan and comply with the order
of the magistrate.
OBITER DICTA
The court in regard to the lack of funds said, “Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets
of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies. Similarly, providing
drainage systems-not pompous and attractive, but in working condition and sufficient to meet
the needs of the people-cannot be evaded if the municipality is to justify its existence”.
1
Lachhmi Devi, (1930) 58 Cal 971
The court also opined that such self-defence is disgraceful as the municipality has funds to
fight the case but not alleviate the problems faced by the public. It further stated, “Had the
municipal council and its executive officers spent half this litigative zeal on cleaning up the
street and constructing the drains by rousing the people’s resources and laying out the city’s
limited financial resources, the people’s needs might have been largely met long ago.”
Adding to the above discussion court also cited the Govind Singh vs. Shanti Sarup2 case
which involved the magistrate directing the owner of the bakery to demolish his oven and
chimney as it caused inconvenience to the public at large under the relevant sections
discussed above. The Supreme court however did not completely agree with the complete
closure which would shut down the baker’s trade (asking baker to cease trade), but relied on
the findings of the Sub Divisional magistrate in local inspection of the site. This was a change
in position from the earlier precedents3 in which the court questioned the “scientific
evidence” or the findings of the magistrate. Therefore, the court took positive aspect from
the judgement in Govind Singh case and quoted it as follows, “We are of the opinion that in
a matter of this nature where what is involved is not merely the right of a private individual
but the health, safety and convenience of the public at large, the safer course would be to
accept the view of the learned Magistrate, who saw for himself the hazard resulting from the
working of the bakery.”
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
One might always contend that it becomes challenging to uphold the verdict rendered and
the magistrate's order on the spot considering the sincerity of the argument made by the
municipality in this case. And the municipality is left with no choice in such a circumstance.
Nonetheless, the 73rd and 74th amendments to the constitution were passed in 1993, granting
local governments the authority to address environmental problems. This was a significant
step forward from the Ratlam case, which eliminated any possibility that such a dispute
would ever occur again.
There is a core and a penumbra to every right (HLA Hart). While the penumbra section is
flexible (a rubber band's elastic nature is a well-known example), the core component is
2
AIR 1979 SC 143
3
AIR 1926 Pat 506 and AIR 1958 MP 350
specified. The environment is now seen as a third-generation human right, and the judiciary
interprets and manipulates this pliable portion. Because each and every human right includes
a few essential characteristics, such as: -
1. Being applicable to everyone, regardless of location or socio-economic background,
etc. (the universal component).
2. It should be enforced with the least number of resources and is specific in nature.
3. The clarity provided by its specificity and lack of ambiguity.
If one bases their assessment on these benchmarks, Justice Krishna Iyer's interpretation of
the environment in this case as a component of human rights was undoubtedly a creative
move.
The Ratlam case was cited by the courts in several subsequent rulings. Consider the Krishna
Gopal case4, in which a lady reported that noise pollution was causing vibrations and posing
a health risk, particularly to her husband, who had a heart condition. The magistrate issued
an order for the plant to close, which the High court subsequently upheld. In this instance,
the court expounded upon Section 133 of the CrPC. The courts have also upheld this case in
subsequent instances.
CONCLUSION
This case aims to address the imprecise areas in environmental law concerning the relevant
legal processes and the enforcement by the relevant statutory entities. In order to address this
environmental concern, public nuisance has become a useful instrument, and Section 133 of
the CrPC has been expanded. Later laws, such as the Water (Prevention and Control of
Contamination) Act of 1974, also address this deficiency. The Environment Protection Act
of 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981.
The Ratlam case created accountability for both public and private entities. While the latter
is required to efficiently discharge effluents and adhere to emission regulations, the former
is duty bound to fulfil its statutory mandated task.
4
(1986) Cr LJ 396
