Right to healthy environment: Vellore Citizens Welfare

Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

Submitted by
Aman Bohtan
Division D
PRN: 18010223007
Class 2018-23 of
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
In
August, 2018
Under the guidance of
Ms. Meera Mathews
Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School Noida
 CERTIFICATE
The project entitled Right to healthy environment: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for Jurisprudence as part of Internal assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of Ms. Meera Mathews from July 2018 to
August 2018. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the project 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:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have made efforts to make this project. However, it would not have
been possible without the support of many individuals who helped me
complete this. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I would like to express my special thanks to Ms. Meera Mathew,

Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Noida who helped me in
understanding the very aspect of the topic.

I would extend my special thanks to the Symbiosis Law School which

gave me this opportunity to work on this project and research about the
topic.

I would also like to thanks my fellow learners for their constant support
throughout.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.thehindu.com
 INDEX
CONTENT PAGE NUMBER
COVER PAGE 1
CERTIFICATE 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY 4
JURISPRUDENTIAL THEORY 6
CASE STUDY 6
ANALYSIS 8
CONCLUSION 9
Jurisprudential Theory
The instance of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Association of India is an eye
opener case which educates us regarding the entire carelessness and negligence by
organizations which abuse the earth without even apprehensions about it. The
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum recorded a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under
Article 32, which gives the subject of India to move to the Supreme Court of India
straightforwardly to ensure one's central rights, against the tanneries and ventures for
contaminating the dirt and water on an expansive scale. On course by the Supreme
Court, the Central Government was requested to make prompt move under Section
3(3) of India's Environmental Protection Act, 1986 to ensure the earth and keep the
contamination in charge. The court additionally guided the Central Government to
manage the circumstance made by these non-condition inviting tanneries and
enterprises by building up an expert in the State of Tamil Nadu. Lately, the Supreme
Court didn't just purpose question identified with the earth conjuring through
different established arrangements and statutes yet in addition has made genuine
endeavours to guarantee its execution of requests through coordinating the Ministry
of Environment and Forests to name an observing board of trustees which will
comprise of multidisciplinary foundation specialists. While it was fruitful in specific
cases, it has not made any huge contrasts in the powerful execution of the Court
arranges yet rather has made issues for natural direction. Not with respect to the
above explanation, the Supreme Court's judgment in Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum v. Association of India case has turned into a point of reference for some,
cases identified with modern contamination in India as it had out of the blue
underscored on ecological standards like standards will be paid by the polluters,
open trust regulation, economic advancement, and between generational value in the
administration of regular assets in India.

Case Study

 McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB

366

Facts
In 1990, McDonald's brought slander strategies against five London
Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell,
and furthermore Steel and Morris, for appropriating the sheet in the city of
 London. This case took after past cases in which McDonald's undermined to
sue more than fifty relationship for slander, including Channel 4 TV and a
couple of essential creations. In each and every such case, the media outlets
settled, and offered expressions of remorse for the charged criticism

Issue
Whether Dave Morris and Helen Steel were liable for defamation against
McDonalds?

Judgement
The case was mediated by Hon. Equity Rodger Bell. On 19 June 1997, Bell
passed on a more than 1,000-page decision, as it were, for McDonald's,
delineated by a 45-page paper read in court. Steel and Morris were
discovered at risk on a numerous focus, anyway the judge moreover found a
segment of the focuses in the reality sheet were substantial. McDonald's seen
as this a legitimate triumph, anyway it was tempered by the judge's help of a
part of the affirmations in the sheet. Specifically, Bell controlled McDonald's
jeopardized the quality of their workers and customers by "misleading
publicizing", and they "abuse kids", that they were "suspiciously reliable" in
the discipline of unnecessary callousness to animals, and they were
"disinclined" to unionization and paid their masters low wages. Additionally,
in spite of the way that the decision allowed £60,000 to the association,
McDonald's honest to goodness costs were fundamentally more noticeable,
and the respondents did not have the resources for pay it. Steel and Morris
rapidly offer against the decision and consequently the lawful contention
proceeded. Steel and Morris took the British Government to the ECHR
(European Court of Human Rights) to battle that it is an open ideal to
scrutinize multinationals and guaranteed that the UK defamation laws are
onerous and out of line that they were denied a reasonable preliminary. Thus,
the court after a progression of long talks and discussions decided for Helen
and Dave referring to that the case had ruptured their rights to opportunity of
articulation and a reasonable preliminary.

 M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) AIR 1987

Facts
For this situation an appeal to was recorded by Mahesh Chandra Mehta
which concerned the risk to the falling apart excellence of Taj Mahal to
conjure the Air Act 1981 and Water Act 1974 and the Environmental
Protection Act 1986 for its motivation of movement to keep emanation from
the two hundred ninety-two production lines by coal or coke expending
manufacturing plants having a harm impact on Taj living in the Taj
trapezium zone, and further to guide them to change into gaseous petrol as
mechanical fuel. As per the applicant i.e. Mahesh Chandra Mehta the
foundries, synthetic, perilous enterprises and the refinery at Mathura were
one the real sources which were harming the Taj Mahal. The unsafe gases
radiated by the Mathura refinery, for example, sulphur dioxide and alternate
businesses when joined with oxygen display in the climate framed sulphuric
corrosive which brought about corrosive downpours which harms the
structure of white marble of the superb World Wonder. Aside from this,
block furnaces, vehicular and generator outflows were additionally
considered in charge of contaminating the air around the Taj Trapezium
Zone. The Articles referred for this situation from the Indian Constitution are
Article 49, 48A, 21.

Issue
Whether the oil refinery in Mathura and other nearby industries pushed into
atmosphere pollutants that contain oxides of sulphur and nitrogen causing
acid rain be held liable for polluting the preserved monument?

Judgement
The court on 11thn of April, 1994 in the wake of hearing academic
knowledge for the social occasions, passed the demand demonstrating that
the organizations orchestrated in Agra be moved out of TTZ. Each one of
these decisions were gone up against the start of reports given by NEERI.
The Ministry of Environment was in like manner asked for to investigate this
point of view and assign an authority master (from India or abroad) to grasp
the investigation of the Taj Trapezium Environmental Area and make report
regarding the wellspring of defilement in the district and the measures to be
gotten to control the same. The Ministry asked an expert committee under
Dr. S. Varadharajan to do the action.

In the meantime, the Indian Oil Corporation similarly agreed to the use of
combustible gas as a substitute fuel. The report said that once combustible
gas is passed on to Mathura there would be no inconvenience in giving the
same to exchange organizations in TTZ and outside TTZ. It was suggested
that a 10 inch remove over, 13 km long pipeline could pass on the oil gas to
the refinery and furthermore substitute ventures and was wanted to be done
by December, 1996. The court on fourteenth of March, 1996 composed the
GAIL, Indian Oil Corporation and the U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation to demonstrate the cutting-edge zones outside the TTZ which
would be related with the gas supply arrange so the undertakings which are
not in a circumstance to get gas affiliations or which are by and large dirtying
may must be moved outside TTZ.

The last judgment for this situation was given on 30th of December 1996 and
the seat comprised of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Faizan Uddin. The
court was of the view that The Taj Mahal is a perfect work of art and has
worldwide notoriety. It is likewise a vital wellspring of income to the nation
 as a result of the immense vacation spot it told. Along these lines, its
magnificence couldn't be imperilled.

Analysis
 Case 1
The case of McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris is very similar to the
Vellore Welfare v. Union of India case. In the Indian case we have Section 3(3) of
India’s Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Here we mention the
McDonalds damage to the environment in the forests of South America and
the resultant was difficulties in the livelihood of the natives and tribal.
 Case 2
The MC Mehta v. Union of India is quite similar to the Vellore Welfare v.
Union of India case. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 was violated
in both cases.

Conclusion
We can conclude that a “right to healthy environment” should be a fundamental
right and without hygiene and cleanliness humanity cannot survive. Taking the case
of the Vellore Welfare v. UOI we can take an input that the due to the bravery,
courage and willingness to fight these multinational companies they had achieved
their objective. Without these qualities, the Indian Judicial System wouldn’t have
started to focus on environmental cases and would continue to support these
industries because they were raising the foreign exchange reserves of the country by
producing these products domestically and then exporting them to the developed
countries. We wouldn’t have seen justice towards a healthy environment any time
soon. Although they were beneficial for the economy, it can’t be justified at the cost
of endangering human lives.
So, as you can see how the above-mentioned cases were fought by normal citizens
of a country against the might powerful people in the society with the help of the
respective judicial system. I thank the judicial system in our country and other
countries too for maintaining its integrity and supporting the people in its fight for
justice and equality