LexM.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 A [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, •JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 48A and 5 lA-State to protect and improve environment-Fundamental duty of every citizen to improve natural environment. Environmental Law Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Envi- ronment (Protection) Act, 1986: c 'Environment'-Discharge of effluents from tannery into the D River Ganga--Necessity to establish primary treatment plants-Closure of tanneries directed on failure to comply-Life, health and ecology have great importance. Practice and Procedure: Court can issue appropriate directions if it finds public nuisance being committed and statutory authorities not E taking adequate steps to rectify the grievance. The petitioner, an active social worker, filed a petition before this Court complaining that neither the Government nor the people were giving adequate attention to stop the pollution of the river Ganga and it F ~ was, therefore, necessary to take steps for the purpose of protecting the "cleanliness of the stream in the river Ganga which was in fact the life sustainer of a large part of the northern India, and· sought the issue of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents other than respondents Nos. I and 7 to 9 restraining them from letting out the trade effluents into the river Ganga till such time they put G necessary treatment plants for treating the trade effluents in order to arrest the pollution of water in the said river. This Court directed issue of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the H 279 A B c t> E 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 1 S.C.R. Code of Civil Procedure treating the case as a representative action by publishing the gist of the petition in the newspapers in circulation in northern India and calling upon industrialists and the municipal corpo· rations and town municipal councils having jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows to appear_ before the Court to show cause as to why direction should not h" issued as prayed for by the petitioner asking them not to allow trade effluents and sewage into the river Ganga without appropriately treating them before discharging them into the river. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice a large number of industrialists and legal bodies entered appearance. Some filed counter affidavits ex· plaining the steps taken by them for treating trade effluents before discharging them into the river. The case against the tanneries at Jajmau, Kanpur, was first taken up by the Court for consideration. Forty three respondents admitted in their counter affidavits that the tanneries discharged their trade effluents into the sewage nallah which led to the municipal sewage plant before they were thrown into the river Ganga. The Court was informed that six of tbe tanneries had already set up and fourteen were engaged in construction ot primary treat'!'ent plants, and some others pleaded for time to do so. It was submitted on behalf ofthe respondents that it would not be possible for them to have secondary system for treating waste water in view of the enormous expenditure involved, which the tanneries would not be able to meet. Some of the tanneries neither appeared nor were represented by counsel in this Court. F Issuing interim directions, this Court, HELD: 1.1 Article 48· A of the Constitution provides that the J" State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article Sl·A of the Constitution imposes as one of the fundam.,ntal duties on every citizen G the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have campassion for living creatures. [285C·D I Realising the importance of the prevention and control of pollu· lion of water for human existence, Parliament passed the Water H (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, to provide for the M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 281 '/"-· prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or A restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith Sections 16 and 17 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.