ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

CASE ANALYSIS: B. L. WADHERU

VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (1996)

SUBMITTED BY

SHIKHAR RAWAT
Division- D. PRN-170102203108 Batch-2017-2022

OF
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

In
MARCH 2020

Under The Guidance Of

Miss. Pallavi Mishra

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

(Symbiosis International (DEEMED) University, PUNE)

1|Page
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

CERTIFICATE

The Project entitled “CASE ANALYSIS: B. L. WADHERU VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (1996)”
submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Environmental Law as part of internal assessment is
based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Miss. Pallavi Mishra from February, 2020 to
March, 2020. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the submission has been duly acknowledged.
I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date:12th March, 2020

2|Page
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1. CASE HISTORY:

01. CASE NAME Appellants: B.L. Wadehra

Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
02. CITATION MANU/SC/0773/1996, AIR 1996 SC 2969
03. CASE NUMBER Writ Petition. (C) No. 286 of 1994.
04. HON'BLE JUDGES/CORAM Kuldip Singh and Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
05. DECIDED ON 01.03.1996
06. CASE REFERRED Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand
(MANU/SC/0171/1980)

The city of Delhi, is one of the most polluted cities in the world. The authorities, responsible for
pollution control and environment protection, have not been able to provide clean and healthy
environment to the residents of Delhi. As a result, the ambient air is so much polluted that it is difficult
to breathe. So, Advocate B.L. Wadehra filed a case before the Supreme Court under article 32 as to
safeguard the public’s ‘right to life’ which is guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Apart from Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution are also being
violated due to wholly re-miss in the discharge of their duties under law.
In the Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an advocate of this
Court, has sought directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal
Council (NDMC) to perform their statutory duties in particular the collection, removal and disposal of
garbage and other waste.
2. MATERIAL FACTS:
The Delhi authorities, responsible for pollution control and environment protection, have not been able
to provide clean and healthy environment to the residents of Delhi. The ambient air is so much polluted
that it is difficult to breathe. More and more Delhi-ties are suffering from respiratory-diseases and throat-
infections. River Yamuna, the main source of drinking-water supply, is the free dumping-place for
untreated sewage and industrial waste. Apart from Air and Water pollution, the city is virtually an open
dust-bin. Garbage strewn all over Delhi is a common sight. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the
MCD) constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi Act) and the New Delhi
Municipal Council (the NDMC) constituted under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (New
Delhi Act) are wholly re-miss in the discharge of their duties under law.
3. KEY QUESTION:
Whether a court can compel a statutory body to carry out its public duty of controlling disposal of
garbage and keeping the city Clean?
3|Page
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

4. DECISION:
The judgment was delivered by Kuldip Singh, J. and it was unanimously decided by the two Judge
Bench of Supreme Court. It was held that MCD has a very large force of Karamcharies working for it.
There are 38311 Safai Karamcharis and MCD has more than 1400 Sanitary Inspectors and other officials
in that category. Total area which MCD is supposed to keep clean and tidy is 1399.26 Sq. Km. Simple
arithmetic shows that there are 27 Safai Karamcharis and one Sanitary Inspector for one Sq. Km. of area.
With such a large manpower at its disposal there can be no excuse with MCD for not controlling disposal
of garbage and keeping city Clean. On the other hand, NDMC is still in a better position. It has 2172
Safai Karamcharis and area under its control is 42.40 Sq. Km. which means that it has 50 Karamcharis to
man one Sq. Km. There is no reason whatsoever why with such a huge manpower at their command
MCD and NDMC cannot present a neat and clean Delhi to its residents.
The court has also referred to the Ratlam Case 1 to answer that Municipality can’t escape their
responsibilities by saying that they have no financial or other means to control pollution and protect the
environment.
This Court, however, reiterate that MCD and NDMC must keep city clean by deploying all means at
their disposal. This Court direct MCD and NDMC to have city of Delhi scavenged and cleaned every
day. Garbage or waste shall be lifted from collection centres every day and transported to designated
place for disposal. Hence writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
5. RATIO/PRINCIPLES APPLIED:
Article 47, Article 21, Article 41A, Article 51A(g), Legitimate expectation, breach of trust, negligent act,
public nuisance.
6. REASONING:
The underlying rationale given by the court for adopting the principle or principles which it applied was
that the ‘Residents have constitutional as well as statutory right to live in a clean city’.
A) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION-
 The ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution has a much wider meaning which includes right to
live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc.
 Article 47: states that it is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health.
 Ar. 48A: Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
and wild life of the country.

1
MANU/SC/0171/1980
4|Page
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 Ar. 51A(g): to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
B) STATUTORY PROVISION-
 NDMC is governed by the New Delhi Act whereas MCD is governed by the Delhi Act. Sections
11, 12, 53, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, & 375 are some of the provisions of the New Delhi Act
which talks about cleaning public streets, places and sewers, preparation of composite manure
etc. and these provisions are pari materia to the relevant provisions of the Delhi Act. It is clear
from various provisions of the Delhi Act and the New Delhi Act that the MCD and the NDMC
are under a statutory obligation to scavenge and clean the city of Delhi.

It is very clear that it is mandatory for these authorities to collect and dispose of the garbage/waste
generated from various sources in the city. Therefore, the MCD and the NDMC have been wholly remiss
in the performance of their statutory duties. Apart from the rights guaranteed under the Constitution the
residents of Delhi have a statutory right to live in a clean city. The courts are justified in directing the
MCD and NDMC to perform their duties under the law. Non availability of funds, inadequacy or
inefficiency of the staff, insufficiency of machinery etc. cannot be pleaded as grounds for non-
performance of their statutory obligations.

C) CRITIQUE:

The learner finds that the courts are justified and reasonable in directing the MCD and NDMC to
perform their duties under the law. Non availability of funds, inadequacy or inefficiency of the staff,
insufficiency of machinery etc. cannot be pleaded as grounds for non-performance of their statutory
obligations. It is no doubt correct that rapid industrial development urbanisation and regular flow of
persons from rural to urban areas have made major contribution towards environmental degradation but
at the same time the Authorities entrusted with the work of pollution control cannot be permitted to sit
back with folded hands on the excuse that they have no financial or other means to control pollution and
protect the environment. If we don’t follow the Human Rights and Fundamental Rights so provided
under Indian Constitution then, Statutory body may legally defy their duties under the law by urging in
self-defence a self-created financial incapacity. The decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of
Human Rights and are the important duty casted upon local self-governing Bodies by the laws of the
land. This case has addressed and upheld the same key question of law again, which was answered in 16
years ago in Ratlam Case2.

2
MANU/SC/0171/1980
5|Page
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Even in the subsequent cases, like Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and Ors 3. (03.10.2019-
PHHC) where Wadehra case was interpreted and applied in the same reasoning consistent with earlier
case i.e., Ratlam Case. In this subsequent case i.e. Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and Ors,
court issue mandatory directions in the interest of public as large because court was of view that
municipal governance had failed to provide green and clean environment to its citizens for which Local
bodies were required to improve municipal governance and ensure efficient service delivery. It is clear
that even in the subsequent cases, i.e., Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and Ors 4. (03.10.2019-
PHHC) cases like Wadehra case was interpreted and applied in the same reasoning consistent with
earlier case i.e., Ratlam Case. Basically, if the duty of Municipality is to scavenge and clean the city of
Delhi then, they can not deny the duties in any way possible.

3
MANU/PH/1486/2019
4
MANU/PH/1486/2019
6|Page