MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath

 

CASE COMMENT

MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath

Equivalent citations: (1997)1 SCC 388

Bench: Kuldip Singh

PETITIONER:............................................................................“M.C. MEHTA”

                                                             V.

RESPONDENT:...........................................“KAMAL NATH & ORS”

DATE OF JUDGMENT- 13/12/1996

BENCH:

Kuldip Singh

S. Saghnar Ahmad

CITATION:

 (1997)1 SCC 388

 

Introduction

Environmental Law principles and doctrines do not display stagnant growth or mediocre application. They have been evolving since years. Several environmental Law principles like the Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, the concept of sustainable development, etc. had gained impetus due to various International Conventions. In India, the concept of Public Trust Doctrine was widely discussed while deciding the case of Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. The case is regarded as one of the most significant judgments in interpreting and applying the Public Trust Doctrine in spirit and substance. Not only did this case highlight the concept of Public Trust Doctrine as well as the Polluter Pays Principle, but also helped exposing the key role played by the Minister of Environment and Forest in granting permissions.

Provisions of Law involved

·       Section 41(2) Whoever fails to comply with any order issued under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 32 or any direction issued by a court under Section 33(2) or any direction issued under Section 33-A shall, in respect of each such failure and on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine, and in case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues after the conviction for the first such failure.

·       Section41(3) If the failure referred to in sub-section (2) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and with fine.

·       Section 42 provides that a person shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

·       Section 42(2) also contemplates imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

·       Section 43 contemplates penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 24.

·       Section 44 contemplates penalty for contravention of Section 25 or Section 26. They also contemplate imposition of fine.

·       Section 45 provides that if a person who has been convicted of any offence under Section 24 or Section 25 or Section 26 is again found guilty of an offence involving a contravention of the same provision, he shall, on the second and on every subsequent conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and with fine.

·       Section 45-A provides that whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or fails to comply with any order or direction given under this Act, for which no penalty has been elsewhere provided in this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuing contravention or failure, he may be punished with an additional fine.

·       Section 47 contemplates offences by companies while Section 48 contemplates offences by government departments.

·       Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules, orders and directions made thereunder.

·       Section 15(1) speaks of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention.

·       Section 16 of the Act contemplates offences by the companies while Section 17 contemplates offences by government departments.

 

Issues

1. Whether it would be right to include Mr. Kamal as a respondent in the petition?
2. Whether the Construction Activity carried out by the private company is justified?

 

Facts of the case

A renowned newspaper called the “Indian Express” had published an article reporting that a private company called Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Span Motels”), which was also the owner of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club. The then Minister of Environment and Forest, Kamal Nath, had a direct connection with Span Motels. Span Motels had built a motel on the bank of the River Beas. This was leased by the Government of India in 1981. Apart from the main land that was being used for construction of the Motel, Span Motels had also encroached upon an additional area of land adjoining the leasehold area which was also leased out to them. The use of earthmovers and bulldozers had devastating effects on a nearby waterbody called ‘River Beas’. The course of River Beas was disrupted and turned in order to divert its flow and create a new channel. The course of the river was disrupted as a safeguard to help prevent the Motel from any future water calamities like the floods.

 

Contentions

Arguments given by Petitioner

M.C. Mehta, who has been pursuing this case with the usual ability and enthusiastic way, has contended that if someone disturbing the ecological balance and play with the innate conditions of rivers, forests, air and water, which are offerings of nature, he/she would be at offence of violating not just the Fundamental Rights, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, but also for violating the fundamental duties under Article 51A(g) which provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen to look after and develop the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to show compassion for living beings or creatures .

Arguments given by Respondent

The Minister of Environment and Forests deny the allegations and contended that he had wrongly been made a party to the petition. Furthermore, Mr. Kamal Nath also contended that the press reports were mala fide and were published with an intention of destroying his reputation. One of the Respondent contend that the course of the river was not changed with mala fide intention and that measures had been taken to prevent erosion. It was argued that the Divisional Forest Officer given permission to Span Motels to conduct the necessity work subject to certain conditions. It was also argued that the construction was carried out from the land under Span Motel’s possession and surrounding area for the protection of the that land from large floods in the future.

 

DEFECTS OF THE LAW

In the Span Motel’s case, the Judiciary upheld environmental Justice in its true sense, while the Minister of Environment and Forest failed to do so. On the contrary, the then Minister of Environment and Forest, Mr. Kamal Nath was one of the reasons why Span Motels got the lease. The Minister of Environment and Forest put his pecuniary interest above the nation’s environmental resources and the issues following from it. In its finding, it was discovered that the Environment Minister’s family were holding majority shares in Span Motels and his ‘dream of having a house by a river was also noted by the Hon’ble Court. This case highlighted the lack of interest as depicted by the responsible government authorities and figures in dealing with the crucial issue of environmental degradation but rather instigated it. It was only because of the vigilant lawyers and the Apex Court that further destruction of the forest, as well as the river, could be prevented. Even the state government did a miserable job in handling this issue by granting permission for irreparable damages. The court did a commendable job in acknowledging and applying the Public Trust Doctrine, while the Minister of Environment and Forest failed to understand it in substance as well as spirit.

 

Rational

The Polluter Pays Principle has been applied in several cases pertaining to the destruction of the environment. The principle is characterized by a compensatory factor. The wide application of the Polluter Pays Principle in the cases concerned with environment law and especially, the Span Motels case makes it extremely important to delve deeper into the study of this principle. It is pertinent to note that even Principle 16 of Rio Declaration endeavors to promote the polluter pays principle

The Polluter Pays principle is applied after the environmental damage has taken place. As per the Polluter Pays Principle, the polluter who is responsible for causing the environmental damage, degradation or destruction would be held liable for the said environmental destruction and would be bound to contribute towards the growth of the environment. As consequence of causing massive environmental damage, this principle mandates the person who has caused such an adverse environmental deterioration to compensate for their detrimental actions. The polluter not only compensates the victims but also pays for the restoration of the environment. Hence, in cases where the environmental damage cannot be reversed, the polluter can at least be made to pay the cost of the environmental damage done by them. This principle gives scope for the creation of absolute liability on the polluter.

Inference

The Supreme Court examined the construction activities and interference with the natural flow of the river, concluding that this practice is environmentally damaging and thus illegal. Since the land given via lease was ecologically vulnerable and was for agricultural purposes, the Himachal Pradesh government violated the Public Trust Doctrine. The Court quashed the lease deed that rented the forested land to the Motel, ruling that the Motel’s construction activities were not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay cost compensation for the restoration of the area’s habitat and ecology. The Motel was required to build a 4-meter-long boundary wall for the construction of the motel, beyond which they were not permitted to use the river basin’s property. The Motel was prohibited from discharging untreated effluent into the river by the court. The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was tasked with inspecting and monitoring the Motel. The Court also addressed the conflict between those in the public who want to protect the environment and those with administrative obligations who believe it is important to encroach on the environment.

They did, however, hold that the country’s aesthetic usage and habitats cannot be eroded for private, commercial, or any other good use unless the courts determine that doing so is appropriate, in good faith, for the public good, and in the public interest. They had claimed that the legislature, not the courts, should resolve the dispute. Since the court agreed to cross the conventional limits of Environmental jurisprudence in India, the judgment is a landmark decision and one of the most relevant cases relating to Environmental law in India. As a result, a new idea was born that was previously unknown in the law of the land. The Indian legal framework has successfully adopted the Public Trust doctrine.

The Public Trust Doctrine has unquestionably been entrenched in our legal system as a result of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath. Subsequent rulings on the subject have reaffirmed this.

 

Conclusion

This case was judged by a 2-judges bench, who ordered and directed that: After a long discussion, the court granted the “Public Trust Doctrine” in this case. The public trust doctrine, as mentioned by the judges during the judgment should be considered as a part of the Land laws. The prior approval, which was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and the lease deed in respect of an area of 27.12 bighas in favour of the company, were quashed by the court. The Himachal Pradesh Government was directed to take charge of the area and restore it to its primary natural and environmental conditions. The motel was directed by the court to pay the cost of compensation for the restitution of the environment and ecology under the Polluter Pay Principle.

The court ordered that the pollution caused by the construction of the motel on the banks of the Beas River be reversed and removed. It was directed that NEERI should check the pollution control plans regulated by the motel. The motel was required to build a 4-meter-long boundary wall for its construction, beyond which they were not permitted to use the river basin’s property. The Motel even should not utilize a single part of the river basin. The river basin should be left untouched from the Motel’s boundary wall. The bank & basin of the river should be left open for the general public use. The motel was not permitted to discharge the untreated waste into the river. The Board was directed to examine all the hotels/institutions/factories within the location of Kullu-Manali and simply just in case any of them gets caught red-handed for discharging untreated waste into the river, the Board should take strict actions against them as per the law. The Motel through its management should show the cause of why an additional pollution fine is not obligatory on the Motel. NEERI was directed to submit the reports by 17^th December 1996 which would be listed on 18^th December 1996. The writ petition was disposed of except for the restricted purpose indicated above.