1. ABSTRACT
This case serves as an important precedent, dealing with the idea that human growth is frequently perceivedas occurring at the expenseof the environment. Everything, from inappropriate disposalof non-biodegradable goodsto huge industrial discharges, has an impact on the environment, which is essential for human survival. The Ganga, India’s most sacred river, has recentlybecome a recipient of massive volumesof home and industrial trash.Kanpur, with a population of 2.9 million, is one of the most populous cities along the route. The city discharges a significant quantity of home and industrial garbageinto the river,particularly from leathertanneries. The lawsuitis about the release of hazardous industrial effluents into a river. The goal of the case analysis is to examine the background, facts, questions presented, and arguments of both sides, as well as the key themes in the case, and to summarise them as brieflyas possible.
2. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case No. :Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985
Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India
Case decided on: October, 1987
Judges: E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh,JJ
Legal Provisions Involved: Art. 48A and Art. 51A of the Constitution of India; Sections 2(j), 16, 17 and 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Sections 3, 3(2) (v),15 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Kanpur has been a key centre for India’s tanneryindustry for more than a century, and it is one of 3 major industries in India, alongwith paper and textiles. The majority of these tanneriesare situated on the Ganga’ssouthern banks, just outside Kanpur,and are severelypolluting. Kanpur has the largestcontamination into the Holy Gangesof any city in Uttar Pradesh, accounting for 75% of the river’s pollutants. Tannery effluent is characterised by its bright colour, high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), high pH, and significant dissolved solid waste concentrations. When this petition was called for a preliminary hearing, the court issued a notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure treating this case as a representative action by publishing a synopsis of the petitionin northern Indian newspapers and inviting all industrialists, metropolitan enterprises, and town civil chambers with jurisdiction over the zones through which the Ganga flows to appear under the constant gaze of the court and to show cause why headings shouldnot be granted to them,as requested by the candidate, and to refuse to allow trade effluentsand sewage into the Ganga without properlytreating them beforereleasing them into the stream.Following the aforementioned notice, various businessmen and municipal governments have appeared in court. When the aforesaid issue came up for hearing before the court, it instructed that the case against the tanneries in the Jajmau region near Kanpur be heard first. M.C. Mehta, an environment lawyerand social activist, filed a PublicInterest Litigation (PIL)in the Supreme Court of India against 89 respondents, including the UoI, the Chairman of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh PollutionControl Board, and the Indian Standards Institute, who were not found accountable.
The court judgement began in 1985 in the holy city of Haridwar,located along the banks of the Ganga,when a matchstick thrown by a smoker caused the river to explode into flames for more than 30 hours.The fire was revealed to be the result of a dangerousinflammable chemical layerover the waterways. The Court considered the matter to be of paramount importance; but, the enormous scale of the case, i.e., the length of the river, was determined to be problematic. 4. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE I. Did all of the leathertanneries put up an initialtreatment plant? II. Whether the State Government had taken notice of the deteriorating state of the holy site and begun an investigation? III. Whether the state has taken any actions, if any at all? IV. Is it appropriate to subsidise the establishment of wastewater treatment plants for smaller industries? If so, what criteria should be used to determine’smaller industries’? V. What actions should the Central Government take to restrict pollution discharge into the river over its whole length? 5. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner • The Petitioner was worried that neither the government nor the people whose lives were inextricably linked with the river and were influenced by it appearedto be concerned about the growing levels of pollution in the Ganga and that appropriate actions were needed to avoid it. • As an engaged social worker, the Petitioner requested a writ/direction/order in the nature of mandamus, inter alia prohibiting the Respondents from discharging hazardous effluents into the Ganga unless they integrated adequatetreatment systems to treat the pollutants and so end water pollution.
Respondents • None of the tanneries contested the fact that their untreated wastewater severely pollutes the Ganga. It was said that the trading effluents are discharged into the sewage nullah, which goes to the Municipal Sewage Plants before being discharged into the river.”
• Some tanneries said that they had already installed basic treatment facilities, while others are in the process of doing so.” • A few of the tanneries that were members of the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce, as well as some of the other tanneries, assured that with the permission of Respondent 8 (State Board), they wouldbuild primary treatmentplants that would be functional within 6 monthsof the date of hearing, and that if they did not, their tanneries would be closed.” • They maintained, however, that it would be impossible for them to create secondary treatment plants to treat the wastewater further since it would require a large investment that would bebeyond their resources.” 6. JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DICIDENDI The Apex Court, while reviewingall the evidence and the arguments advancedby the concerned parties, held that the right to maintain the petition cannot be challenged despite the petitioner not being a riparian owner. The court delved into the common law in which an injunction against the Municipal Corporation can only be brought by a riparian owner whose rights have been directly violated due to the acts of the Corporation. However, the Court observed that if a petition has been brought to protect the lives of the people who make use of such polluted water, such a petition must be allowed and cannot be challenged. In the present case, the polluted waterof the river Ganga turnedout to be a publicnuisance that was affecting the community at large. Combined with the fact that such a state of the river was due to the failure of the concerned bodies to obey the statutory duties for several years made them, and specifically, the Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur, responsible for the pollution. Coming on to the problem of dairies and cattle in Kanpur, which were directly responsible forpolluting the river, the Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to either situate such dairies outsidethe city or transfer the accumulated waste to such an area from where the waste could not reach the river. Furthermore, the court directed the Mahapalika to construct more sewerage linesand increase the size of the existingones for better transport of such waste.The Apex Court also observed the lacuna under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby industrialists or individuals who polluted the river were effectively obtaining stay order by filing a petition under the aforementioned section. Considering such misuse of power, the court directed the High Courts to not grant stay orders in such ordinarycases and even in extra-ordinary cases, a stay order may be provided but subject to such a case being disposed of within two months from the date of institution.
7. CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS
The case’s verdict turned out to be vital for future environmental law challenges since it resulted in a number of important stances that are still lauded today. By interpreting the right to life under Article21 broadly, the Supreme Court adopted a proactive approach to the case’sresolution and ensured that the people’s fundamental rights were not infringed. Furthermore, the court through its judgment reiterated that the duty of the state is not just limited to protecting and improving the environment but also providing a healthy environment to its citizens under Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, it is the duty of the citizens under Article 51 A of the Constitution of India to protect and preserve the environment. In lieu of this, one of the many observations made in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India regarding the consciousness of cleanliness of the environment amongst people was to observe a ‘Keep the city clean’ week and ‘Keep the town clean’week. Through such an initiative, the whole countrycould contribute something in order to keep the environment clean.It was crucial for the Court to allay the worries expressed after the judgment on the Bhopal Gas tragedy, which wasdelivered just a year earlier, in order to restore the nation’s trust in the legal system. To assure the public that industries would be held entirely responsible for their acts and punished for endangering the lives of the community, it was deemed important to establish such a powerfuljudgment.
8. IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
§ Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd, [1953]1 All ER 1326.
Pramati Chatta and Shivam
The authors are second and third year students at Rajiv Gandhi National University of law.
Comments