Professional Documents
Culture Documents
31
30 Ban.L.J.(2002) 131-153
*
. Senior Lecturer, Law School, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi
1
. See, for example, the counter affidavit filed by the Polluting Industries,
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, State Government and
Rajasthan Pollution Control Board in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446; Sec also for affidavit, Vineet Kumar Mathur v.
Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 715.
2
. See, for example, the public interest petition filed by Sri M.C. Mehta, the green
lawyer; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1037; AIR 1988 SC 1115;
(1997) 2 SCC 411; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC
2715.
3
. Sector 14 Resident Welfare Association and other v. State of Delhi (1999) 1
SCC 702.
4
. Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212.
5
. Dr. Ajay Singh Rawat v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 266.
6
. Re-Bhavani river-Sugar Shakti Ltd. (1998) 6 SCC 335.
7
. Supra note 1.
83 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
8
. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446; The
apex court found some justification in the contention of the polluting industry that
various counter affidavit filed by Rajasthan Pollution Control Board were self
contradictory, hence directed the Board to adopt constructive attitude in the matter
9
. Benjamin N. Cardozo, "The Nature of Judicial Process", Second Indian reprint,
21 (1997).
10
. AIR 1988 SC 1115
11
. See, order dated September 22, 1987 AIR 1988 SC 1037
12
. AIR 1988 SC 1115, 1126. The said English case was Pride of Derby and
Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanise Ltd. (1953) Ch. 149.
13
. (1997) 2 SCC 411.
14
. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715.
15
. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 351.
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 84
16
. Supra note 8.
17
. AIR 1987 SC 1086
18
. The Supreme Court has not explained or identified those few foreign decisions.
19
. Supra note 17
20
. 1866 (3) H.L. 330.
21
. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1248, 309
22
. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 199 2 SC 248, 261.
23
. Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather, PLC (1994) (2)
W.C.R. 53.
24
. Brunic Port Authority v. General Jones Pvt Ltd (1994) 68 Aus Law Journal 331.
85 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
disagreed with the view that the law stated in the said decision was
obiter.
It may be mentioned that the absolute liability principle was
evolved and deliberated by the four Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court, it would have been better, had the issue could have been settled
by a Constitution Bench consisting of seven judges. It may be mentioned
that Bichhri Village's case which made this principle as binding law was
decided by two Judges Bench.
It is interesting to note that justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy quoted the
judgment delivered25 by B.N. Kripal, C.J. of the Gujarat High Court, as he
then was, to illustrate the devastating impact of chemical industries. It
may be pointed out that B.N. Kripal, J was one of the judge of the apex
court constituting the Bench which heard the aforesaid case at the apex
court.
It is submitted that this approach raises a fundamental question;
will it not reflect that on a particular issue, the judges have 'pre-conceived
notion about the subject matter?
It is further submitted that the Supreme Court strongly relied on
the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner pertaining to
Indian and foreign precedents. Moreover, it appeared that counsel of
respondent failed to impress the court while contradicting the submission
of the petitioner, by citing specific foreign precedents.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case26, the Supreme Court
conceded the fact that constitutional and statutory provisions protected a
person's right to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment but
the source of the right was the inalienable common law right of clean
environment. In the instant case, the court had not cited any specific
case law in support of its argument but categorically declared its
preference for British common law in following words :
Our legal system having been founded on the British Common
Law, the right of a person to pollution free environment is a part of the
basic jurisprudence of the land.27
In M.V. Nayudu case28, I, the apex court through Jagannadha
Rao, J took cognizance of Indian and foreign precedents. The Court
recognized the fact that in the environment field, the uncertainty of
scientific opinion has created serious problems for the courts. In regard to
different goals of science and law in the ascertainment of truth, the
Supreme Court cited the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in following
words :
25
. Parvin Jash Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (1995) 2 Guj LR 1210.
26
. AIR 1996 SC 2715
27
. AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2722.
28
. (1997) 2 SCC 718
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 86
29
. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993) 113 Sct 2786.
30
. Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v. Federated Farmers of New Zealand.
(1988) 1 NZLR 78.
31
. Oleum Gas Leak case AIR 1987 SC 1086, Vellore case AIR 1996 SC 2715.
32
. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 6 SCC 62.
33
. Lopez Ostra v. Spain 303-CEur Ct HR (Ser A, P.S.) 1990.
34
. Minors Opasa v. Deptt. of Environment and Natural Resources, 33 ILM, 173
(1994).
35
. Fundepublico v. Mayor of Bugala Grande (1992) as cited in Supra note 29 at
72.
36
. Wildlife Society of Southern Africa Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourisn of Republic of South Africa (1996) 9 BCCR 1221 (JK).
37
. Supra note 28
38
. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87.
87 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
it not reflect that the justice delivered has not been on merit but on pre-
conceived notion of a particular judge?
It may be noted that some judges like Kuldip Singh of the
Supreme Court relied more on Indian precedents 39 than foreign
precedents. This inclination towards Indian precedents was also visible
in Bittu Sehgal case40 and Calcutta Tanneries case.41
It may not be out of place to say that similar judicial trend was
maintained in Gopi Aqua Farms case42, even after the composition of the
Bench had been changed. The apex court clarified its earlier judgment by
saying that it was a judgment in rem, and binding on all irrespective of the
fact that the affected person or group was a party or not to the
proceedings.
In Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking case43,
Sri K.K. Venugopal appeared before the court as the counsel of the
petitioner at the instance of the apex court as the intricate questions of
the law were found to be involved.
The learned counsel took pains to bring to court's notice some
decisions of the American Courts, that drinking was the most beneficial
use of the water and this need was so paramount that it could not be
made subservient to any other use of water, like irrigation. So the right to
use for domestic purpose would prevail over other needs. 44 In the
instance case, apex court relied on the submission of the counsel of the
petitioner and opined that it found plausibility in the contentions and was
inclined to unfold new jurisprudential arena.
It may be noted that aforesaid observation of the apex court
revealed the fact that the court wanted to give due weightage to foreign
precedents where Indian law was ambiguous.
Understanding the dilemma faced by environmental litigants, the
Supreme Court in Kamal Nath case45 ruled that the common law doctrine
of 'public trust' was a part of the Indian legal system. 46
39
. Kanpur Tanneries case AIR 1988 SC 1037; Vellore case AIR 1996 SC 2715;
Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (1986) Supp. SCC 517.
40
. Bitu Sehgal v. Union of India and others (2001) 9 SCC 181, (Kuldip Singh and
Sagir Ahmad decided the case on 31.10.1996); see also, Indian Council for Envio
Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 (Kuldip Singh, S. Sagir Ahmad,
B.N. Kripal, JJ decided the case).
41
. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411 (Kuldip Singh and Sagir
Ahmad decided the case).
42
. Gopi Aqua Forms and others v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 577. (S.C. Sen
and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ decided this case)
43
. (1996) 2 SCC 572
44
. Id. at 574
45
. (1997) 1 SCC 388.
46
. Ibid.
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 88
money illegally collected. It was yet another thing to say that such power
could be exercised sparingly depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.53
It is interesting to note that petitioner relied on another judgment
of apex court which was delivered by S. Rajendra Babu, J. who as
member of the Bench, also heard the Kanoria Industries Ltd case. In the
instant case, the apex court speaking through Shivraj Patil, J made a
distinction between aforesaid cases and pointed out that it could not be
said that there were laches on the part of respondents or that they had
abandoned their claim for refund.54
The apex court rejected the claim of petitioner that the relief
should be denied to the respondents on the basis of delay and laches in
approaching the High Court for claiming the refund of water cess paid
under protest. The court again took help of one of its judgment delivered
in Saraswati Sugar Mill case55, and pointed out that the claims for refund
were made by the respondents within a reasonable time after the
judgment was rendered by this court in Saraswati Sugar Mill case.56
It may be noted that apex court relied strongly on the submission
made by the respondents. The court also accepted the proposition laid
down in Saraswati Sugar Mill case that the collection of cess was not
authorized by law as entry 15 of the Schedule I of the Act did not cover
sugar industry and distillery prior to the amendment of the Schedule. The
court refused to interfere with the judgment and order of Allahabad High
Court. And dismissed the application of U.P.P.C.B. One can say that the
apex court solely used its decisions and decisions of the High Court as
raw materials for producing judgment in the instant case.
In Goa Foundation, Goa case57, Goa Foundation filed an appeal
against the judgment of Bombay High Court which dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant regarding construction of hotel on the
disputed plot of land situated in coastal regulation zone; an
environmentally sensitive area. The apex court used Indian precedents
which included the decision of the apex court and Calcutta High Court to
decide the case. G.B. Pattanaik, J, speaking for the court, cited a case 58
from Calcutta High Court to emphasize the necessity of harmonising two
competing interest i.e. Environment and Development. It may be noted
that U.C. Banerjee J, decided this case alongwith Pattanaik, J at the apex
court. Incidentally U.C. Banerjee J as a single Judge, as he then, was
decided the People's Union case at Calcutta High Court. Further,
53
. Id. at 558.
54
. Id. at 559.
55
. (1992) 1 SCC 418
56
. Ibid.
57
. (2001) 2 SCC 97.
58
. People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of W.B. AIR 1993 Cal 215.
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 90
59
. (2001) 2 SCC 97,102.
60
. Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281,
298.
61
. AIR 1980 SC 1622
91 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
62
. Id. at 1628-1629.
63
. AIR 1988 SC 1037
64
. Id at 1047
65
. Ibid.
66
. Talcher Swasthya Surakshya Parishad v. Chairman-cum-M.D., M.C.L. AIR
1996 Orr. 195, 197, where justice Pasayat cited an article written by a 'learned
author, C.M. Jariwala, to emphasize the traditions in ancient India.
67
. C.M. Jariwala, "Environmental Justice : A Journey from Ratlam Municipality to
M.C. Mehta", in Nagbooshnam (ed) Environmental Law, Policy and Perspective,
32,37 (1995).
68
. Shyam Divan and Roscucranz, "Environmental Law and Policy in India : Cases
Materials and Statutes (2001).
69
. Hasmattullah v. State of M.P. AIR 1996 SC 2076
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 92
70
. Id at 2081. In the instant case, the High Court referred to and relied on number
of articles and books written by different persons in coming to the conclusion that
bulls and bullocks were useful animals even if they become old, and slaughter
should be banned.
71
. Dr. Ajay Singh Rawat v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 266.
72
. Id at 267
73
. AIR 1996 SC 1446
74
. Id at 1458
75
. AIR 1996 SC 2715
76
. Id at 2722;
77
. M.C. Setalvad, "Common Law in India", (1960) See also Joseph Minattur, "The
Indian Legal System", (1978)
78
. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718-742.
79
. See for example, Lord Woolf, "Are the judiciary environmentally Hyopict", the
Journal of Environmental Law, 798-896 (1992)
93 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
NEERI, the Apex court had also sought expert opinion of leading.
Scientific Institutions laboratories, academic institutions including
Universities, Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control
Board, individual experts, advocate and bureaucrats to decide the issues
pertaining to science and technology. Recognizing the role of ‘experts’
and expert bodies or Institutions having specialized knowledge for
environment justice delivery system, often, the apex court appointed its
own committees/commissions or relied on commission/committees
appointed by the Government or allowed the parties to place on record
before the court, the report of expert bodies/commission/committees. In
most of the cases, the committees had not only assessed the degree o
environmental damage involved, but also made recommendation as to
appropriate remedial measure. The Judges have normally refrained from
considering the technical evidence in court preferring on the whole to
validate committees findings with constitutional order. The analysis of
environmental cases reveal the fact that the Apex court simply converted
the recommendations of the National Environment Engineering Research
Institute, Nagpur into a court order. 84 In view of the above problems, the
Supreme Court in the Oleum Gas Leak85 case advocated for a neutral
scientific expert as ‘an essential input to inform judicial decision making”.
The Supreme Court deliberately used the word neutral to emphasize the
impartiality of such expert so that vested interest don’t prevail on the
balancing scales and simply to protect their self-interest. In this
connection, it may be relevant to note that in 1986, Dr. Upendra Baxi,
suggested to the Chief Justice of India to establish a special cell on
Science and Technology in the Supreme Court itself, where scientists
would interpret scientific evidence for the judges to enable resolution
disputes. He had also suggested a refresher course for atleast appellate
judges on problems of science and technology which appear frequently.
Unfortunately, these two suggestions have still to receive attention of the
Supreme court of India.
(iv) RESOLUTION :
In the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited case86,
the Supreme Court found an opportunity to use resolution of Parliament
as raw material to produce an order.
In the instant case, issue was related to imposition of cess under
the provisions of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess
Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) on the hydropower
generating industry. The bone of contention was the Section 16(2) of the
84
. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87, 126; M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411, 426; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v.
Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2720; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1997) 3 SCC 715, 718; Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. and
others (2001) 2 SCC 97, 106.
85
. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965
86
. Union of India v. National Hydroelectric Corporation Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 307.
95 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
'said Act'. It required that the notification adding any industry to the
Schedule 1 to the Act must fulfill two conditions : one, the notification
shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and two, the Central
Government shall seek approval of Parliament to the issuance of such
notification. In the instant case, the Additional Solicitor General misled
the court by saying that the notification was referred to a Parliamentary
Committee and as such provisions of Section 16 were complied with. But
he was exposed by the Additional Director in the Ministry of Environment
and Forests who categorically stated in his affidavit that from the record
of Parliament, there was nothing to support that a notification as
contemplated under section '16(2) had been moved'. 87 Moreover,
pleadings clearly disclosed that 'no such approval was in fact sought
for'.88 The court further pointed out that :
Mere perusal of sub-section (2) shows that there has to be a
positive act of approval by Parliament to the issuance of the notification
before it can be held that Schedule I has been amended. Merely laying
the notification before each House of Parliament is not sufficient
compliance within the provisions of Section 16(2).89
Using 'resolution' as raw material, the court concluded that no
resolution relating to the notification had been moved in Parliament. If no
resolution had been moved, the question of Parliament giving approval
did not arise. Though the first step of placing the notification in each
House of parliament had been taken, subsequent steps leading to
passing of the resolution were not even commenced with the moving of
the resolution.90 The court reached to the conclusion that ' realisation of
the cess was not in accordance with law.
(v) Debates :
Deliberations in Parliament has also been used as raw material
for decision making. In Bichhri Village case91, the apex court took notice
of debates in Parliament woes of people living in the vicinity of chemical
industrial plant in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. Since toxic untreated
waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and because the untreated
toxic sludge was thrown in the open and around the complex, the toxic
substance had percolated deep into the bowels of the earth polluting the
acquifers and the subterranean supply of water. The water in the wells
and stream had turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human
consumption.
It had become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land.
The soil had become polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation, the main
87
. Id. at 310
88
. Ibid.
89
. Ibid.
90
. See also, Ramjee Patel with Manohar S. Marwah v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg
Darshak Manch and others (2000) 3 SCC 29..
91
. AIR 1996 SC 1446
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 96
92
. (1997) 2 SCC 87.
93
. Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holding Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 97
94
. Id. at 110-111.
95
. M/S Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board.
96
. See for example, Centre for Env. Law W.W.F. for Nature v. State of Orissa AIR
1999 Ori 15.
97
. See for example, M.P. Rambabu v. District Forest Officer, AIR 2002 A.P. 256,
Bijajanand Patra v. D.M. Cuttack AIR 2000 Ori. 70.
97 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
69-70.
103
. T.S. Rama Rao, "Supreme Court and the 'Higher' logic of Fundamental rights"
25 JILI, 193 (1983).
104
. H.M. Seervai, "Constitutional Law of India", Vol. 3 at 1935-1936 (2nd ed,
1979), For Contra Opinion, See also, C.M. Abraham, "Environmental
Jurisprudence", 13-36 (1999).
105
. Supra note 102 at 194.
106
. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 213, 223.
107
. Ibid.
99 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
and without therebeing any finding that M/S Span Motel was guilty under
the Act.
It may be recalled that apex court issued a show cause notice to
the Span Motel company for imposition of pollution fine in its previous
judgment108 pertaining to the aforesaid case.
It may be pointed out that the apex court reiterated its proposition
regarding Article 142 in E.S.P. Raja Ram v. Union of India109 by a five-
judge Constitution Bench that the exercise of power under Article 142 of
the Constitution can not be pressed into aid in a situation under it would
amount to contravention of the specific provisions of a Statute. 110
It has been pointed out that complete justice provision can be
invoked for procedural purposes only. Article 142 does not confer
substantive power on the Supreme Court to do "complete justice".
It is submitted that the decision rendered in Kamal Nath111, and
E.S.P. Rajaram112 reflect the correct position in law and the contra view
taken in Delhi judicial113 Services Association, UCC114 and Re V.C.
Misra115 is not correct.
Dr. R. Prakash also supports the aforesaid contention by saying
that Article 142 is an Article which deals with procedural aspects and the
two words "complete justice' can not enlarge the scope of the Article. In
Construing the expression, Complete justice", the Scheme of the Article
should be looked into. It is not right to construe words in a vaccum and
then insert the meaning into an Article.116
(b) Environmental Legislations Rules and Notifications :
Apart from the Constitution of India, environmental legislations
got the attention of the court most. The environmental legislations which
had been cited frequently were the Water Act, 1974, Water Cess Act,
1977 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It may not be out of place
to say that Air Act, 1981 was referred to indirectly in some water pollution
108
. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388; See also Subsequent judgment
pertaining the same issue, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIR 2002 SC 1515, 1519.
109
. (2001) 2 SCC 186
110
. Id. at p. 195.
111
. (2000) 6 SCC 213.
112
. (2000) 2 SCC 186.
113
. (1991) 4 SCC 406
114
. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584, See also,
Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police (1994) 1 SCC 536
115
. (1995) 2 SCC 584.
116
. R. Prakash, "Complete Justice under Article 142", (2001) 7 SCC J, 14-20, See
also, Mora Simha Murthy, "Article 142, - A charter for judicial absolutism?", The
Lawyers Collective Vol. 10. No. 4, 21-22, (1995). For contra opinion, see, Indira
Jai Sing, "A profession on Trial", The Lawyers Collective Vol. 10, NO. 4, 23
(1995).
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 100
cases.117 The apex court also referred to the Water Rules, 1975, the
Water Cess Rules, 1978, the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
Further, the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules,
1989, the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical
Rules, 1989, the Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning,
Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 and host of other Rules and
Notifications were cited in some water pollution cases. This trend was
visible in Kamal Nath case.118
In Ganga Pollution case119, the apex court began with the history
of the Water Act, 1974, definition of various terms under the Act,
authorities under the Act and their powers and functions. Thus the apex
court used primary sources as well as secondary sources for making a
decision.120
In Vellore case, the apex court devoted more than two and half
pages to explain the statement of objects and reasons to the
Environment Act, 1986, important provisions and Rules under the said
Act.121
In M.V. Nayudu case122, the apex court took notice of notifications
issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 123 and other
environmental legislations. In Bittu Sehgal case124, direction was sought
from the Court pertaining to Dahanu Taluka, State of Maharashtra, which
was declared by the Central Government as an ecologically-fragile area
by the notification dated 20.6.1991. In the instant case, the apex court
took cognizance of the notification issued by the Government of India,
dated 19.2.1991 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) and sub-
section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, declaring
coastal stretches as coastal Regulations Zone (CRZ). The court
conceded the fact that the notification was self contained and cited its
own decision in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action 125 to clarify that the
117
. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2721.
118
. See, for example, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath 2000 (5) SCALE 69,73; S.
Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87.
119
. Ibid.
120
. See generally, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411, 428-429;
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2722.
121
. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2722-
2724.
122
. A.P. Pollution Central Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718
123
. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Vide its
notifications dated September 27, 1988 included "Vegetable oil including solved
extracted oil under the "RED" hazardous category. Further, the Ministry put such
category under "RED" for the Doon Valley Vide its notifications dated Feb 1,
1989.
124
. Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 182, 183, See also, Union of India
v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 307.
125
. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281;
101 THE BANARAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol.31
notification was made operative by this court in the aforesaid case. One
can say that use of notification as a raw material has helped the court to
arrive at rational conclusion.
139
. Id at 183.
140
. Supra note at 196
141
. Surpa note 22.
142
. Supra note 41
143
. Supra note 28 Some high courts have referred foreign precedents on other
environmental matters which are not connected with water pollution.
2002] WATER POLLUTION AND SUPREME COURT : RAW MATERIALS…. 104
144
. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715, 2721;
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 715, 720; Bittu Sehgal and another v.
Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 181, 194, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 6
SCC 213, 218-219.
145
. C.M. Abraham, "Environmental Jurisprudence in India", 22, (1999)
146
. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1037; See also, Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446