LexM.C.MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A·
M.C.MEHTA
v. "
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..
MAYl2,1998
! • :
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPALAND V.I{. KHARE, JJ.]
Constitutjo.n of India, 1950 :
. Articles. 21, 47 and 48A-'-Stat<r-Obligatitm-lmprovement of Public
C Health and. Protection of Environment-'-Supreme Court-Directions given
for tackling problems arising out of chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular
·pollutiof>-c"But unsatisfactory performance by concerned authorities-Lack
of manpower pleaded by concerned authorities-Ensuring compliance of
directions b"JJ Supreme Court-Appointment of Court Officers-Authorities to
D submit list of persons from each of the nine Police Districts for appointment-
Authorities also to suggest the manner in which appointees would discharge
their obligation-Ministry of Peiroleum and Ministry of Surface Transport to
file affidavits disclosing the steps taken for supply of lead free petrol and the
use of catalytic convertor on vehicles-Committee set up by Court's earlier
order to submit a report abo,ut the action taken by the Committee for controlling
• E vehicular pollution and. the. connected matters as weli as the draft action
plan to tackle the situation.
Article 144-'-State-Duty to comply with directions issued by Supreme
Court.
·
"
F
CIVIL ORIG[NAL JURISDICTION.: Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 of
1985. "
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
'
G
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor Ge~eral, Harlsh N. Salve, (A.C.), Uday
Umesh Lalit, (A.C.), P.P. Malhotra, G.L. Sanghi, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev
· -~ Dhawan., Manoj Prasad, Wasi.m A. Quadri, Ms. Niranjana Singh, S.N. Sikka,
Anil ~tiyar, A.D.N. Rao; P. Panneshwaran, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Ms. Anubha
Jain, Arvind Kr. Sharma, K.P. Mittal, Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dharnija, N.B.
Khatiwada, Umesh Bohare, Hardeep Singh Anand, Shri Narain, Ashok Mathur,
H R.K. Maheshwari, Ranjit Kumar, R.P. Gupta, Vijay Panjwani, Neeraj Sharma,
"
"
340
'
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.
341
Vineet Kumar, K.K. Gupta, Ms. Sheela Goel, L.K. Pandey, A.K. Sharma, S.B. A
· - Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parkh, Mahavir Singh, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms.
Smitha Inna, D.S. Mehra, Pramod B. Agarwala, Ms. Praveena Gautam, for the
appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This Court has, keeping in view the mandate of Articles 47 & 48A of
B
the Constitution of India, issued directions from time to time with a view to
tackle the problem arising out of chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular
pollution. We are not satisfied with the performance of the concerned
authorities in tackling the acute problem of vehicular pollution and traffic C
regulations in Delhi. Environmental protection appears to have taken a back
seat. In fact we are distressed to find that the directions given by this Court,
from time to time, have not evoked the response they were expected to evoke.
When this Court gave those directions it treated it as a legal issue and
proceeded to examine the impact of the right flowing from Article 21 of the
Constitution oflndia viz-a-viz decline in environmental quality. Law casts an D
obligation on the State to improve public health and protect and improve the
environment. The directions issued by this Court were aimed at making the
State to effectively discharge their obligations. In their response the Delhi
Administration and the Union of India have pleaded, among other factors,
lack of man power to deal with the growing menace of chaotic traffic and
E
decline in the environmental quality.
the directions issued by this Court are meant to be complied with and
we wish to emphasise that it is the obligation of the State to comply with the
same. On our part, we are considering the desirability of appointing Court
Officers to assist the administration with a view to ensure compliance of the F
directions issued by this Court. Article 144 of the Constitution of India
provides "All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act
in aid of the Supreme Court." We have suggested to learned counsel for the
parties to give us a list of persons from every colony/area in each of the 9
Police Districts of Delhi, who may be appointed as such Court Officers and
suggest the manner in which they can assist the administration to carry out G
its obligations. This exercise by the Court, we clarify would be with a view
to supplement and augment the efforts of the Delhi Administration and the
Union of India to deal with tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.