CASE COMMENT
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga River Case)
Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 SC 1037;(1987) 4 SCC 463
Author: E Venkataramiah
Bench: E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ.
PETITIONER:
............................................................................ “M.C. Mehta”
V.
RESPONDENT: ........................................... “Union of India & Ors.”
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 22/09/1987 and 12/01/1988
BENCH:
E.S. Venkataramiah (J)
K.N. Singh. (J)
CITATION:
AIR 1988 SC 1037
(1987) 4 SCC 463
Introduction
Ganga has a lot of religious as well
as humanitarian significance for many civilizations of India. It flows from the
Himalayas towards the Bay of Bengal and is life support for all the population
along that route. The river is 2,525 km in length. Kanpur is a city located on
the bank of the Ganga river and with a population of over 2.9 million people,
is an important contributor to the pollution of the river. The main pollutant
discussed in this case is from industries and in particular the leather
industry.
Provisions of Law involved
The Constitution of India: Art. 48A
& 51A. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act: Sec. 2(j), 16,
17, 24. Environment (Protection) Act: Sec. 3(2)(iv), 9, 15.
The Constitution of India, 1949; The
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986.
Issues
Whether or not all of the leather
tanneries have set up a primary treatment facility.?
Was the worsening condition of the
sacred Ganga river noticed by the State Government or not? And was the
Government investigating the matter?
Have any steps been taken by the
State Government to regulate the pollutants?
If the smaller industries are to be
funded to set up their effluent treatment plants then what should be the
criteria to determine these smaller industries?
What steps should be taken by the
Central Government to regulate pollutant discharge into the river in the
future?
Facts of the case
The origin of the case is traced
back to 1985 Haridwar when a smoker threw a matchstick into the Ganga river
which resulted in the river catching fire and lasted for more than 30 hours.
The fire was due to a layer of chemical effluents over the Ganga river which
was discharged by the factories along the river. It was based on this incident
that M.C.Mehta, an environmental lawyer and a social activist filed a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) against 89 respondents in the Supreme Court of India.
4 of the respondents ( Respondents 1,7,8, and 9 ) were Union of India.
Considering the length of the river
is over 2,500 Km, the case would have been an impossibility. Hence, the court
asked Mr. Mehta to narrow down his focus for his appeal and he chose the city
of Kanpur. In the PIL, he asserted that even though there was a code to be
followed, proper steps were not being taken by the government to stop the
pollution of the river Ganga. He requested in his PIL that all the leather
tanneries in the district of Kanpur be stopped till they set up proper effluent
plants to treat pollution and not let any untreated effluents be dumped into
the river. He also claimed that the Municipal Corporation has been inefficient
in the treatment of the river which was making the matter worse.
Contentions
Arguments are given by Petitioner
Plaintiff grieved that neither the
people living and using the river nor the authorities realized how harmful the
increasing levels of pollution in the river can have and to prevent any harmful
outcome, some necessary steps must be taken. Since then, nobody has taken any
action against the significant increase of pollutants in the river. Mr. Mehta
as a social worker has sought a writ order like Mandamus which, inter alia
directs the respondents to take effective measures from releasing effluents
into the river unless proper treatment plants have been set up.
Arguments are given by Respondent
The tanneries stated that they were
discharging the effluents on the Municipal Corporation sewage system which was
further dumping the pollutants into the Ganga river. None of the tanneries
disputed that effluents that they were discharging into the river were
polluting the river significantly. Some tanneries claimed that they had the
prescribed treatment plants while some others claimed that they were already in
the process of setting up the treatment plants. Some tanneries guaranteed to
the court that they would set up the prescribed treatment plants within 6
months and if they failed to do so within the specified time, they would shut
down the tanneries. But the tanneries argued against a secondary treatment
plant as it would significantly increase their expenditures in the
manufacturing process which would lead the factories to a loss.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
The provisions of The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were not clear enough on the
regulation of the pollutants. This was corrected by the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 in which Section 3(2) (iv) empowered the Central
Government to do the regulation as they deemed necessary.
Section 9 of the Act made it
necessary for every person to prevent environmental pollution and Section 15
brought the provision penalties to all who polluted the environment.
Rational
Both Article 51A(g) which makes it
the duty of the citizen to protect the environment and article 48A which makes
it the duty of the State to protect the environment were not being followed in
this case.
The provisions of The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were also not being followed.
Specifically, section 24 of the Act prohibits any person from knowingly or
unknowingly permitting any poisonous matter into a stream. Stream is defined in
Section 2(j) of the act to cover all the natural and unnatural bodies of water
to any extent as the Government prescribes.
Sections 16 and 17 of the act grants
responsibility to the State Government to make sure all the necessary
treatments are being done to all the effluents which are being passed onto the
rivers. They are also responsible for laying down the procedures for how the
treatment of the effluents should be done in the factories.
Inference
It is common knowledge that when
something is or can be injurious to one's health, he/she should make a
complaint regarding that matter. This did not occur in this particular case
mainly because people are still unaware of their rights, duties, and remedies
under the Constitution of India, 1949. The authorities responsible for the
protection of the river were ignorant of the treatment. The factories were also
ignorant of the pollutants that were infecting the lake because the treatment
would be too expensive for them to continue the business.
CONCLUSION
This whole case was based on the
discharge of ‘trade effluents’ into the river Ganga. Trade effluents are any
substance that is discharged from an industry. As a result of this case, the
State was entrusted to regulate the emissions and treatment of all the trade
effluents into any water body. It also mandated that every Industry must have a
primary treatment plant for all the effluents that they discharge. While making
the order, the court also clearly established that any inconvenience caused to
the industry to set up these plants is irrelevant.
This case is one of the most
important in the region of environmental pollution. It took a vital step toward
informing the citizens about the importance of protecting our rivers as well as
the duties that each citizen has towards the environment. The citizens also
understood that they can compel the authorities to ensure regular cleanup of
their surroundings.
The court agreed that the pollution
of Ganga amounted to public nuisance.
){kind=link}
0 Comments