Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
By our judgment dated September 22, 1987 in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India [AIR 1988 SC 1037] we issued certain directions with regard to the
industries in which the business of tanning was being carried on at Jajmau near Kanpur on the
banks of the river Ganga. On that occasion we directed that the case in respect of the
municipal bodies and the industries which were responsible for the pollution of the water in
the river Ganga would be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, we took up for consideration first the case against the municipal bodies. Since it
was found that Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga, we took
up for consideration the case in respect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
We have in the judgment delivered by us on September 22, 1987 [reported in AIR 1988
SC 1037], briefly referred to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the
Water Act’) in which provisions have been made for the establishment of the 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 3 and 4 of the Water Act provide for the constitution of the Central Board and
State Boards respectively. A State Board has been constituted under section 4 of the Water
Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 16 of the Water Act sets out the functions of the
Central Board and section 17 of the Water Act lays down the functions of the State Board.
The functions of the Central Board are primarily advisory and supervisory in character. The
Central Board is also required to advise the Central Government on any matter concerning the
prevention and control of water pollution and to co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards.
The Central Board is also required to provide technical assistance and guidance to the State
Boards, carry out and sponsor investigations and research relating to problems of water
pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollution. The functions of the State
Board are more comprehensive. In addition to advising the State Government on any matter
concerning the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution, the State Board is
required among other things (i) to plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention,
control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and to secure the execution
thereof, (ii) to collect and disseminate information relating to water pollution and prevention,
control or abatement thereof; (iii) to encourage, conduct and participate in investigations and
research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water
pollution; (iv) to inspect sewage or trade effluents, works and plants for the treatment of
sewage and trade effluents; (v) to review plans, specifications or other data relating to plants
set up for the treatment of water, works for the purification thereof and the system for the
disposal of sewage or trade effluents or in connection with the grant of any consent as
required by the Water Act; (vi) to evolve economical and reliable methods of treatment of
sewage and trade effluents, having regard to the peculiar conditions of soil, climate and water
resources of different regions and more especially the prevailing flow characteristics of water
159
in streams and wells which render it impossible to attain even the minimum degree of
dilution, and (vii) to lay down standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be
discharged into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair weather dilution
available in that stream and the tolerance limits of pollution permissible in the water of the
stream, after the discharge of such effluents. The State Board has been given certain executive
powers to implement the provisions of the Water Act. Sections 20, 21 and 23 of the Water
Act confer power on the State Board to obtain information necessary for the implementation
of the provisions of the Water Act, to take samples of effluents and to analyse them and to
follow the procedure prescribed in connection therewith and the power of entry and
inspection for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Water Act. Section 24 of the
Water Act prohibits the use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matters etc. contrary to
the provisions incorporated in that section. Section 32 of the Water Act confers the power on
the State Board to take certain emergency measures in case of pollution of stream or well.
Where it is apprehended by a Board that the water in any stream or well is likely to be
polluted by reason of the disposal of any matter therein, or of any likely disposal of any
matter therein, or otherwise, the Board may under Section 33 of the Water Act make an
application to a court not inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
class, for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which has also been referred to in our earlier
judgment, also contains certain provisions relating to the control, prevention and abatement of
pollution of water and one significant provision in that Act is what is contained in Section 17
thereof, which provides that where an offence under that Act is committed by any Department
of Government, the Head of that Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
is liable to be punished.
- It is unfortunate that although Parliament and the State Legislature have enacted the
aforesaid laws imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the municipalities for
prevention and control of pollution of water, many of those provisions have just remained on
paper without any adequate action being taken pursuant thereto. After the above petition was
filed and notice was sent to the Uttar Pradesh State Board constituted under the Water Act, an
affidavit has been filed before this Court by Dr. G.N. Misra, Scientific Officer of the U.P.
Pollution Control Board setting out the information which the Board was able to collect
regarding the measures taken by the several local bodies and also by the U.P. Pollution
Control Board in order to prevent the pollution of the water flowing in the river Ganga. A
copy of the report relating to the inspection made at Kanpur on 23-11-87/24-11-87 by Shri
Tanzar Ullah Khan, Assistant Environmental Engineer and Shri A.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer
enclosed to the counter-affidavit as Exhibit K-5.
It is thus seen that 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water is being discharged into the
river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which is the highest in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
next only to the city of Calcutta which discharges 580.17 million litres a day of sewage water
into the river Ganga. Para 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri Jai Shanker Tewari, Executive
Engineer of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika reads thus: - That the pollution in river Ganga from Kanpur is occurring because of
following reasons:
160
(i) About 16 nalas collecting sullage water, sewage, textile waste, power
plant waste and tannery effluents used to be discharged without any treatment
into the river. However, some Nalas have been trapped now.
(ii) The dairies located in the city have a cattle population of about 80,000.
The dung, fodder waste and other refuse from this cattle population is
quantitatively more than the sullage from the city of human population of over 20
lakhs. All this finds its way into the sewerage system and the nalas in the rainy
season. It has also totally choked many branches of sewers and trunk sewers
resulting in the overflow of the system.
(iii) The night soil is collected from the unsewered areas of the city and
thrown into the nalas.
(iv) There are more than 80 tanneries in Jajmau whose effluent used to be
directly discharged into the river.
(v) The total water supply in Kanpur is about 55 million gallons per day.
After use major part of it goes down the drains, nalas and sewers, sewage is taken
to Jajmau sewage pumping station and a part of it is being supplied to sewage
farms after diluting it with raw Ganges water and the remaining part is
discharged into the river.
(vi) Dhobi Ghats.
(vii) Defecation by economically weaker sections. - The affidavit further states that the U.P. Jal Nigam, the U.P. Water Pollution Control
Board, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, the Central Leather
Research Institute, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, the Kanpur Development Authority and the
Kanpur Jal Sansthan have started taking action to minimise the pollution of the river Ganga.
It is also stated therein that the financial assistance is being provided by the Central Ganga
Authority through Ganga Project Directorate, State Government, the World Bank, the Dutch
Government etc. for implementing the said measures. The said affidavit gives information
about the several works undertaken at Kanpur for minimising the pollution of the river Ganga.
It also states that Rs. 493.63 lacs had been spent on those works between the years 1985 and
1987 and that the total allocation of funds by the Central Ganga Authority for Kanpur is Rs.
3694.94 lacs and that up to the end of the current financial year it is proposed to spend Rs.
785.58 lacs (1985 to 1987-88) towards various schemes to be completed under Ganga Action
Plan. The affidavit points out that in Kanpur City sewer cleaning has never been done
systematically and in a planned way except that some sewers were cleaned by the U.P. Jal
Nigam around 1970. The main reasons for mal-functioning and choking of the city sewerage,
according to the affidavit, are (i) throwing or discharging of solids, clothes, plastics, metals
etc. into the sewerage system; (ii) throwing of cow dung from dairies which are located in
every part of the city which consists of about 80,000 cattle; (iii) laying of under-sized sewers
specially in labour colonies; (iv) throwing of solid wastes and malba from construction of
buildings into sewers through manholes; (v) non-availability of mechanical equipment for
sewer cleaning works; and (vi) shortage of funds for proper maintenance. It is asserted that
the discharge of untreated effluents into the river Ganga will be stopped up to 80% by March,
1988.
161
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
The introduction of modern water carriage systems transferred the sewage disposal from
the streets and the surroundings of townships to neighbouring streams and rivers. This was
the beginning of the problem of water pollution. It is ironic that man, from the earliest times,
has tended to dispose of his wastes in the very streams and rivers from which most of his
drinking water is drawn. Until quite recently this was not much of a problem, but with rapid
urbanisation and industrialization, the problem of the pollution of natural waters is reaching
alarming proportions.
The most disturbing feature of this mode of disposal is that those who cause water
pollution are seldom the people who suffer from it. Cities and industries discharge their
untreated or only partially treated sewage and industrial waste waters into neighbouring
streams and thereby remove waste matter from their own neighbourhood. But in doing so,
they create intense pollution in streams and rivers and expose the downstream riparian
population to dangerously unhygienic conditions. In addition to the withdrawal of water for
downstream towns and cities, in many developing countries, numerous villages and riparian
agricultural population generally rely on streams and rivers for drinking water for themselves
and their cattle, for cooking, bathing, washing and numerous other uses. It is thus riparian
population that specially needs protection from the growing menace of water pollution (pages
1 and 2).
BENEFITS OF CONTROL
The benefits which result from the prevention of water pollution include a general
improvement in the standard of health of the population, the possibility of restoring stream
waters to their original beneficial state and rendering them fit as sources of water supply, and
the maintenance of clean and healthy surroundings which would then offer attractive
recreational facilities. Such measures would also restore fish and other aquatic life.
Apart from its menace to health, polluted water considerably reduces the water resources
of a nation. Since the total amount of a country’s utilisable water remains essentially the
same and the demand for water is always increasing, schemes for the prevention of water
pollution should, wherever possible, make the best use of treated waste waters either in
industry or agriculture. Very often such processes may also result in other benefits in addition
to mere reuse. The application of effluents on agricultural land supplies not only much needed
water to growing crops but also manurial ingredients; the recovery of commercially valuable
ingredients during the treatment of industrial waste waters often yields by products which
may to some extent offset the cost of treatment.
If appropriate financial credits could be calculated in respect of these and other incidental
benefits, it would be apparent that measures for the prevention of pollution are not unduly
costly and are within the reach of all nations, advanced or developing. It is fortunate that
people are becoming more receptive to the idea of sharing the financial burden for lessening
pollution. It is now recognised in most countries that it is the responsibility of industries to
treat their trade wastes in such a way that they do not deteriorate the quality of the receiving
waters, which otherwise would make the utilisation of such polluted waters very difficult or
costly for downstream settlers.
162
URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM
The crucial question is not whether developing countries can afford such measures for the
control of water pollution but it is whether they can afford to neglect them. The importance of
the latter is emphasised by the fact that in the absence of adequate measures for the prevention
or control of water pollution, a nation would eventually be confronted with far more onerous
burdens to secure wholesome and adequate supplies of water for different purposes. If
developing countries embark on suitable pollution prevention policies during the initial stages
of their industrialisation, they can avoid the costly mistakes committed in the past by many
developed countries. It is, however, unfortunate that the importance of controlling pollution is
generally not realised until considerable damage has already been done.” - In common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an
action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of water in a
river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage
from discharging such sewage into the river. In Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling
Association v. British Celanese Ltd.[(1953) Ch 149], the second defendant, the Derby
Corporation admitted that it had polluted the plaintiff’s fishery in the River Derwent by
discharging into it insufficiently treated sewage, but claimed that by the Derby Corporation
Act, 1901, it was under a duty to provide a sewerage system and that the system which had
accordingly been provided had become inadequate solely from the increase in the population
of Derby. The Court of Appeal held that it was not inevitable that the work constructed under
the Act of 1901 should cause a nuisance, and that in any case the Act on its true construction
did not authorise the commission of a nuisance. The petitioner in the case before us is no
doubt a riparian owner. He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who
make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot
be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance,
which is wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable
to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community
at large. The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in
the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to move this
Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal
authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water Act. We have already set out the
relevant provisions of the statute which impose those duties on the authorities concerned. On
account of their failure to obey the statutory duties for several years the water in the river
Ganga at Kanpur has become so much polluted that it can no longer be used by the people
either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur has to bear the major
responsibility for the pollution of the river near Kanpur City. - It is no doubt true that the construction of certain works has been undertaken under
the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur in order to improve the sewerage system and to prevent
pollution of the water in the river Ganga. But as we see from the affidavit filed on behalf of
the authorities concerned in this case the works are going on at a snail’s pace. We find from
the affidavits filed on behalf of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika that certain target dates have
been fixed for the completion of the works already undertaken. We expect the authorities
concerned to complete those works within the target dates mentioned in the counter-affidavit
163
and not to delay the completion of the works beyond those dates. It is, however, noticed that
the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika has not yet submitted its proposals for sewage treatment works
to the State Board constituted under the Water Act. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should
submit its proposals to the State Board within six months from today. - It is seen that there is a large number of dairies in Kanpur in which there are about
80,000 cattle. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take action under the provisions of the
Adhiniyam or the relevant bye-laws made thereunder to prevent the pollution of the water in
the river Ganga on account of the waste accumulated at the dairies. The Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika may either direct the dairies to be shifted to a place outside the city so that the
waste accumulated at the dairies does not ultimately reach the river Ganga or in the
alternative it may arrange for the removal of such waste by employing motor vehicles to
transport such waste from the existing dairies in which event the owners of the dairies cannot
claim any compensation. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should immediately take action to
prevent the collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city. - The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to increase the size of the
sewers in the labour colonies so that the sewage may be carried smoothly through the
sewerage system.Wherever sewerage line is not yet constructed steps should be taken to lay it. - Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to construct
sufficient number of public latrines and urinals for the use of the poor people in order to
prevent defecation by them on open land. The proposal to levy any charge for making use of
such latrine and urinals shall be dropped as that would be a reason for the poor people not
using the public latrines and urinals. The cost of maintenance of cleanliness of those latrines
and urinals has to be borne by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. - It is submitted before us that whenever the Board constituted under the Water Act
initiates any proceedings to prosecute industrialists or other persons who pollute the water in
the river Ganga, the persons accused of the offences immediately institute petitions under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court and obtain stay orders
thus frustrating the attempt of the Board to enforce the provisions of the Water Act. They
have not placed before us the facts of any particular case. We are, however, of the view that
since the problem of pollution of the water in the river Ganga has become very acute the High
Courts should not ordinarily grant orders of stay of criminal proceedings in such cases and
even if such an order of stay is made in any extraordinary case the High Courts should
dispose of the case within a short period, say about two months, from the date of the
institution of such case. We request the High Courts to take up for hearing all the cases where
such orders have been issued under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
staying prosecutions under the Water Act within two months. The counsel for the Board
constituted under the Water Act shall furnish a list of such cases to the Registrar of the
concerned High Courts for appropriate action being taken thereon. - One other aspect to which our attention has been drawn is the practice of throwing
corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the river Ganga. This practice should be immediately
brought to an end. The cooperation of the people and police should be sought in enforcing
this restriction. Steps shall be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the Police
authorities to ensure that dead bodies or half burnt bodies are not thrown into the river Ganga.
164 - Whenever applications for licences to establish new industries are made in future,
such applications shall be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment
of trade effluents flowing out of the factories. Immediate action should be taken against the
existing industries if they are found responsible for pollution of water. - Having regard to the grave consequences of the pollution of water and air and the
need for protecting and improving the natural environment which is considered to be one of
the fundamental duties under the Constitution [vide Clause (g) of Article 51A of the
Constitution] we are of the view that it is the duty of the Central Government to direct all the
educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons
relating to the protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes. The Central Government shall get text books
written for the said purpose and distribute them to the educational institutions free of cost.
Children should be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness commencing with the
cleanliness of the house both inside and outside, and of the streets in which they live. Clean
surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. Training of teachers who teach this
subject by the introduction of short term courses for such training shall also be considered.
This should be done throughout India. - In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanliness of environment
the Government of India and the Governments of States and of the Union Territories may
consider the desirability of organising “Keep the city clean” week (Nagar Nirmalikarana
Saptaha), ‘keep the town clean’ week (Pura Nirmalikarana Saptaha) and ‘Keep the village
clean’ week (Grama Nirmalakarana Saptaha) in every city, town and village throughout India
at least once a year. During that week the entire city, town or village should be kept as far as
possible clear, tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air. The organisation of the
week should be entrusted to the Nagar Mahapalikas, Municipal Corporations, Town
Municipalities, Village Panchayats or such other local authorities having jurisdictiion over the
area in question. If the authorities decide to organise such a week throughout India but may
be staggered depending upon the convenience of the particular city, town or village. During
that week all the citizens including the members of the executive, members of Parliament and
the State Legislatures, members of the judiciary may be requested to cooperate with the local
authorities and to take part in the celebrations by rendering free personal service. This would
surely create a national awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling allround deterioration of the environment which we are witnessing today. We request the
Ministry of Environment of the Government of India to give a serious consideration to the
above suggestion. - What we have stated above applies mutatis mutandis to all other Mahapalikas and
Municipalities which have jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows.
Copies of this judgment shall be sent to all such Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities. The
case against the Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall
stand adjourned by six months. Within that time all the Nagar Mahapalikas and
Municipalities in the State of Uttar Pradesh through whose areas the river Ganga flows shall
file affidavits in this Court explaining the various steps they have taken for the prevention of
pollution of the water in the river Ganga in the light of the above judgment.
