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
- Whether it would
be right to include Mr. Kamal as a respondent in the petition?
- 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 17th December
1996 which would be listed on 18th December 1996. The writ
petition was disposed of except for the restricted purpose indicated above.
0 Comments