S. JAGANNATH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 11-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
S. JAGANNATH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Environment (protection) Act, 1986: Sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 15. 
Environment Protection Rules, 1989: Rule 5(3). 
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 2(j) & 
(k) and 25. 
Fisheries Act, 1897: 
Wild-life Protection Act, 1972 : 
Forest conservation Act, 1980: 
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989: Rule 2(j) 
and 5. 
Environmental /aw-Coastal Zone Regulation Notification-Restric-
tions imposed on prawn fanning in ecologically fragile coastal ureas-Writ in 
public interest seeking directions for prohibiting prawn famiing in coastal 
areas-Held setting up of shrimp culture fanns within the prohibited area 
under Notification cannot be pennitted-Shrimp culture industry held neither 
"directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities'-Dis-
tinction between conventional and modem method of shrimp fanning dis-
cussed-New method poses a serious threat to ecology-In view of damage 
caused by acquaculture industry to ecology the fact of large scale potential of 
foreign exchange held not relevant-Directions issued by Supreme 
G Court-Constitution of Authority for protection of ecologically fragile coastal 
areas-Direction to recover compensation from polluter;--Constitution of 
Environment Protection Fund-Compensation to workers retrenched from 
shrimp culture industries. 
Environmental Law-Marine pollution-Sea 
coast 
and 
H beaches--Degrading environment of-Duty to protecr-f'recautionary prin-
848 
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. 
849 
ciple and polluter pays principle-Implementation of 
A 
Environmental Law-Sustainable development. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 48-A and 51-A-Protection and improvement of environ-
B 
ment:--Duty of State-Negligence on the part of authorities responsible for 
implementation of provisions-Deprecation of 
Article 25~Seventh Schedule-List I Entry l~oastal Zone Regula-
tion notification issued under Central Act-Held would prevail over the law C 
made by legislatures of States. 
In exercise of its power under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of 
the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and 
Forests, Government of India issued Coastal Zone Regulation Notification 
dated February 19, 1991, whereunder various restrictions were imposed on D 
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Chairman, 
Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the uplift-
ment of the weaker sections of Society, filed a writ petition in public 
interest under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions from this 
Court for (i) stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn E 
farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas' (ii) prohibition from nsing 
the waste lands/wet lands for prawn farming and (iii) constitution of a 
·national coastal management authority to safeguard the marine life and 
coastal areas. 
Various States and Union Territories filed their replies to the writ 
petitions. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the National Environ· 
mental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) visited coastal 
areas of various States to investigate whether the ecologically fragile area 
F 
was being environmentally degraded and submitted its two reports to this 
Court. The Court further directed all the States and Union Territories not G 
to give fresh licences or permission for setting up of any acqua-farm in 
their respective territories till further orders. With a view to affording 
opportnnity of hearing to acqua- farms this Court also directed the 
Coastal States and Union Territories to issue notices to them. The report 
submitted by Dr. K. Alagarswamy, Director, Central Institute of Brackish 
water acqua-culture was also placed on record. This report highlights H 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A various environmental and social problems created by coastal acqua-cul-
ture. It also discussed various types of technologies adopted by the acqna· 
culture industries in India. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (1) the modern • 
other than traditional • techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting 
B and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. There-
fore, only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp 
farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted; (ii

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