Ganga Pollution Case- Man’s progress is frequently regarded as occurring at the expense of the environment. Everything, from the inappropriate disposal of non-biodegradable objects to major industrial discharges, has an impact on the environment, which is essential for human survival. The Ganga, India’s most sacred river, has suddenly become a dumping ground for massive volumes of residential and industrial trash. The lawsuit concerns the dumping of hazardous industrial effluents into a river.
The purpose of the case analysis is to examine the context, facts, concerns presented, both sides’ arguments, and emphasised themes in the case and to mention them as briefly as possible.
CASE CITATIONS[2]
Title of the Case: MC Mehta vs. Union of India
Citation: 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530
Court: Supreme Court of India
Parties Involved:
• Petitioner: M.C. Mehta and Anr.
• Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Bench: E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ.
INTRODUCTION[3]:-
The Ganga originates in the Himalayas and flows south, then east, before draining into the Bay of Bengal. The river runs for 2,525 kilometres and has been the lifeblood of numerous Indian civilizations. Kanpur, with a population of 2.9 million people, is one of the largest cities on the Ganga’s banks, and it dumps a massive quantity of trash into the river. The leather industry’s industrial/trade effluents are the primary contaminant in this city.
When effluent from this industry is released into the water, it contains “putrescible organic and poisonous inorganic material,” which depletes the amount of dissolved oxygen in the waterbody, kills aquatic life, and harms anybody who drinks it. The Supreme Court took up the case after a writ petition was filed by renowned lawyer Shri MC Mehta, who is considered a pioneer in the field of environmental law, and it was discovered that many industries along the river’s banks were discharging their effluents into the river without first treating them. The case has been dubbed the Ganga contamination case, the Kanpur Leather Tanneries case, and the Mehta I case.
BRIEF FACTS[4]
M.C. Mehta, a social activist and environmental lawyer, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at India’s Supreme Court against 89 defendants. Respondents 1, 7, 8, and 9 were the Union of India, the Chairman of the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Soil Pollution, the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Soil Pollution Control Board, and the Indian Standards Institute, respectively, who were not held responsible.
The court judgement began in 1985 in the holy city of Haridwar, which is located along the banks of the Ganga River, when a smoker hurled a matchstick into the river, causing it to explode into flames for almost 30 hours. The existence of a hazardous inflammable chemical layer over the waters was determined to be the cause of the fire. The Court had considered the matter to be of paramount importance, but the case’s enormous magnitude, i.e., the length of the river, proved to be problematic.
ISSUES
1. Had all of the leather tanneries installed a main treatment plant?
2. Has the State Government taken notice of the deteriorating state of the sacred river and launched an investigation into the matter?
3. What, if any, actions had been made by the government?
4. Should funding for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities be provided to smaller businesses? If so, what criteria should be used to identify smaller industries?
5. What actions should the central government take to ensure that pollution discharge into the river is regulated over its entire course?
DATES OF THE JUDGEMENT
★ The decision passed on 12/01/1988
JUDGES
The Bench comprised E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL[5]
✓ Petitioner’s Argument:
1. The petitioner expressed his dissatisfaction that neither the government nor the people whose lives were inextricably linked to the river and were directly impacted by it appeared worried about the rising levels of pollution in the Ganga, and that immediate action was required to avoid it.
2. As an engaged social worker, the petitioner requested a writ/direction/order in the type of mandamus prohibiting the Respondents from discharging hazardous effluents into the Ganga unless they incorporate adequate treatment systems to treat the effluents and prevent river pollution.
✓ Respondent’s Argument:
1. None of the tanneries contested that the effluent discharge from the tanneries pollutes the Ganga in a significant way.
2. It was reported that the trade effluents are discharged into the sewage nullah, which flows to the Municipal Sewage Slants before being discharged into the river.
3. Some tanneries said that they had already installed primary treatment facilities, while others stated that they are in the process of doing so.
4. Some of the tanneries that were members of the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce, as well as some of the other tanneries, guaranteed that with the approval of Respondent 8 (State Board), they would construct primary treatment plants that would be operational within six months of the hearing date, and that if they failed to do so, their tanneries would be shut down.
5. However, they said that establishing secondary treatment plants to treat the wastewater further would be impossible since it would require a large investment that they could not afford.
DECISION
In 1988, the court reviewed all of the evidence and issued a decision. In this instance, the court ruled that the petitioner was concerned in safeguarding those who used the water, and that he may submit a petition to enforce statutory provisions against the mahapalika and other authorities involved. The court stated that there are numerous water-borne illnesses that may arise as a result of contaminated water, and that they are extremely detrimental to the general public. On the question of whose duty it was, the court decided that it was the industries’ obligation to ensure that their waste was properly processed and subsequently released.
The court further stated that a company should only be granted a licence if it can demonstrate an appropriate method of waste treatment. If current industries are proved to be culpable for water contamination, they must face severe consequences. The tanneries must also build a main treatment facility, if not a secondary one, according to the court.
The mahapalika was also found liable for failing to comply with their responsibilities and failing to take any actions to avoid water contamination, according to the court. It gave the mahapalika orders to take prompt action in this regard.
The court also ordered the federal government to provide free publications to the general public in order to improve public awareness of environmental issues. It further said that this ruling will apply to all Mahapalikas with jurisdiction over the Ganga.
CONCLUSION[6]:-
The decision is still regarded as one of the most significant in our country’s environmental law. The decision addressed a number of novel scenarios and interpretations of legislation and fundamental rights. The court continues to employ the arguments made in this case. As a result, this case became a watershed moment in Indian legal history.
The lawsuit is about more than just people’s rights, compensation, and economic losses; it also brought the gravity of environmental concerns to the attention of the whole country. Disasters like these, as well as the Bhopal gas tragedy, have posed a serious threat to the environment. The threat to the environment is particularly urgent in today’s world of technological progress and industry.
As important as this breakthrough is for the growth of civilization, it is critical to pay attention to the environmental issues that this development is causing. We are getting closer to the end of the environment with each passing day. Everyone living on this planet has access to the environment, and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a safe and healthy environment. It is also everyone’s responsibility to work for it and contribute to its improvement.
[1] https://indianjudiciarynotes.com/case-study/case-study-mc-mehta-vs-union-of-india/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59060/
[3] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5748-m-c-mehta-v-s-union-of-india.html
[4] https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-m-c-mehtavs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/
[5] https://www.lawcolumn.in/doctrine-of-absolute-liability-m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india/
[6] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5748-m-c-mehta-v-s-union-of-india.html
For more Blogs – CLICK HERE.
Lawyers Gyan is now on Telegram (t.me/LAWYERSGYAN). Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our WhatsApp group.
Disclaimer:
Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your own checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.
Ganga Pollution Case Ganga Pollution Case Ganga Pollution Case
