KALYANESHWARI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 21-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 1 S.C.R. 894 
A 
KALYANESHWARI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2004) 
8 
JANUARY 21, 2011 
[S.H. KAPADIA CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Articles 32, 14 and 19 - Public interest litigation -
Petition under Article 32 by a non-governmental organization 
- Seeking direction to Union of India and other States to 
immediately ban mining and manufacturing activities in 
D asbestos or its allied products - Held: Cannot be granted -
There is no law banning the use of asbestos in various 
~ 
manufacturing processes despite its ~dverse effects on 
human health - Supreme Court cannot legislate and ban an 
activity .Under relevant laws - Every factory using or 
E · manufacturing asbestos, obtains a licence under the Factories 
Act as well as permission from the competen.t authorities 
including permission under the Environmental Laws - All the 
- laws in force have been complied with and directions of this 
Court in the case on similar issue have been canied out -
F 
Reply affidavits by different States as well as Union of India 
to the effect that such activity was carried out in accordance 
with specified parameters and under' due supervision - ·More 
so, there is lack of specific data as also vague averments in 
the writ petition - Only few hundred workers were subjected to 
G 
medical examination -
Large number of families are 
dependent .upon such processes - Also, the writ petition is a 
result of business rivalry and has been filed by the petitioner 
again at the behest of other industries to ultimately cause 
material and business gains to that or such other companies ~ 
- Thus, it lacks bonafide and is complete abuse of process 
H 
894 
KALYANESHWARI v. UNION OF INDIA, & ORS. 
895 
of law - It has been filed as a proxy litigation for the purpose A 
of achieving private interest and, thus, rejected - Certain 
directions issued - Public interest litigation. 
Article 32 - Public interest litigation - Maintainability of 
- Held: Petitions which are bona fide and genuine, not 8 
motivated by extraneous considerations and in public interest 
alone, are entertained in this category - Litigant is under an 
obligation to disclose true facts and approach the Court with 
clean hands - Courts while exercising jurisdiction has to take 
great care that wide jurisdiction should not become a source C 
of abuse of process of law by disgruntled ,litigant. 
The petitioner (a registered society), is a non-
governmental organization. It has filed the instant writ 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950, 
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the D 
Union of India and other respondent-States to 
immediately ban all use of asbestos in any manner 
whatsoever; constitution of a Committee of eminent 
specialists to frame a scheme for identification and 
certification of the workers/victims suffering from E 
asbestosis or other asbestos related diseases or cancer; 
and issuance of direction to the States and the Union 
Territories to identify the workers/victims therein and 
provide them treatment and take measures to prevent 
harmful effects of asbestos in the factories or F 
establishments. 
Disposing of the writ petition and dismissing the IA, 
the Court. 
HELD: 1. There is no merit in the instant writ petition, G 
as far as prayer of the petitioner for banning of mining 
and manufacturing activities in asbestos or its allied 
products is concerned. While rejecting the prayer, certain 
directions are issued. [Para 28] (928-C] 
H 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1 There is no law banning the use of asbestos in 
various manufacturing processes despite its adverse 
effects on human health. It is not for this Court to legislate 
and ban an activity under relevant laws. Every factory 
using or manufacturing asbestos, obtains a licence 
B 
under the Factories Act as well as permission from the 
competent authorities including permission under the 
Environmental Laws. In the case of *Consumer Education 
and Research Centre certain directions were issued with 
regard to the said issue. Once all the laws in force have 
c been complied with and directions of this Court as 
contained in the case of *Consumer Education and 
Research Centre are carried out in their true spirit, there 
is no reason as to why this Court, in exercise of its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, 
0 
shou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.