LexM.C. MEHTA versus KAMAL NATH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.C. MEHTA A v. KAMAL NATH AND ORS. MAY 12, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B Environmental Protection and Pollution Control: Constitution of India, 1950: c Articles 48-A, 51-A (g), 32 and 226-Environment and Ecology-- Pollution and degradation of - "POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE"-lnvoking of-Notice issued to compalTJ' pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court dated I 3-12-1996 for payment of (i) compensation and (ii) pollution fine for causing degradation of environment-Validity of-Held: In a writ petition or PIL court can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological D balance but also for the victims who have suffered due to ecological disturbance-However, court cannot impose pollution fine without a trial and without following the prescribed procedure under the Act-Hence, notice regarding imposition of pollution fine withdrawn-Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986-Water (Prevention and E Control of Pollution) Act, 1974-Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975-Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978-Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982-Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Union Territories) Rules, 1983-Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989-Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous F Chemical Rules, 1989-Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response Rules), 1996. Article 21-"Life"-Any disturbance of the basic elements of the environment, 110me/y, air, water and soil would be hazardous to "life". Article 142-Environmental Pollution-Fine-Imposition of-Held: If there is a contravention of the provision of an Act power under Art. 142 cannot be exercised by Supreme Court-Hence, fine on a person can be imposed only qfier following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act and upon finding him guilty. 389 G H 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. A Article 32-Environmental pollution-Writ petition and PIL against- Damages and exemplary damages-Awarding of-Held: Supreme Court, under Art. 32, can award damages in a PIL or a writ petition-A person can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent not to cause pollution. B Doctrines: Doctrine of Polluter Pays Principle-applicability of This Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents on two points viz., (i) why the respondents be not asked to pay compensation to reverse the C degraded environment, and (ii) why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed pursuant to its earlier judgment dated 13-12-1996. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that fme was a component of Criminal Jurisprudence and could not be utilised in civil proceedings, D specially under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution either by this Court or the High Court as imposition of fine would be contrary to the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution; and that fine could be imposed upon a person only if it was provided by a statute and gave jurisdiction to the Court to inflict or impose that fine after giving a fair trial to that person but in the absence of any statutory provision, a person could not be penalised E and no fine could be imposed upon him. Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution have to be F considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely, air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21. (396-8-C) G 1.2. In the matter of enforcement of rights under article 21, this Court, besides enforcing the provisions of the various Envir'lnmental legislations, bas also given effect to Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 and bas held that if those rights are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance. In order to H protect the "life", in order to protect "environment" and in order to protect ' M.C. MEHTA v. KAMAL NATH 391 "air, water and soil" form pollution, this Court, thro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.