Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v.

Union of India
(1996)/ tamil nadu tanneries case

Facts
River Palar is a river in the State of Tamil Nadu, which is also one of the main
sources of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people. The
petition was filed against excessive pollution caused by tanneries and other
industries in the State. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research
Centre also revealed that a significant portion of agricultural land had turned
either partially or completely unsuitable for cultivation.

Issue
Should the tanneries and industries be allowed to operate at the expense of
damage to the surrounding environment?

Arguments from the Parties

Petitioner
The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner argued that the whole surface and sub-soil water of river
Palar has been intoxicated and as a result, it has turned out non-accessible for consumption to the
inhabitants of the region. They further contended that the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu
have caused serious damage to the environment in the region. A study conducted by a non-
administrative association, covering 13 towns of Dindigul and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat
Unions, uncovers that 350 wells out of an aggregate of 467 wells used for drinking and water
system purposes have been contaminated.

Respondent
The advocates from the side of the tanneries argued that the quality concerning Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) fixed by the Board wasn't legitimized. This Court by the request dated April 9,
1996, coordinated the NEERI to examine this angle and offer its input. In its report, NEERI has
legitimized the models stipulated by the Board. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has not
completely set down models for inland surface water release for Total Dissolved Solids,
sulphates, and chlorides. the selection on these guidelines rests with the individual State Pollution
Control Boards in line with the prerequisites supported nearby site conditions. The rules
stipulated by Tamil Nadu Pollution Board Control (TNPCB) have been advocated. The principle
endorsed of the TNPCB for inland surface water release is met for tannery squander waters cost-
viably through appropriate embed control gauges in tanning activity, and normally structured and
viably worked wastewater treatment plants (ETPs and CETPs).
Held
The Court highlighted that the main purpose of the Environment Protection
Act is to create an authority under Section 3(3) with all the necessary powers
and functions to protect and improve the environment. However, it was
disappointing that not enough authorities were appointed for the same. Thus,
it directed the Central Government to appoint an authority within one month
and confer on it all the adequate powers required to deal with the situation
created by tanneries and other polluting industries in Tamil Nadu. It also
directed the authority to implement the ‘precautionary principle’ and ‘polluter
pays principle’. A fund called ‘Environment Protection Fund’ was also to be
constituted. The compensation received was to be employed for reversing
the damage done to the environment and to the victims of the damage.

NGT - Background
 The Chief Justice of India, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, had advised the central
government in the M.C. Mehta and Anr. Etc Vs Union of India case in 1986 that it
could be beneficial to set up Environmental Courts on a regional basis.
 In the landmark case A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Prof. M.V. Nayudu, the
Supreme Court cited his observations in 1999. The court stressed the importance of a
court made up of judges and technical specialists once more. The SC could hear an
appeal from such a court.
 India promised at the 1992 Earth Summit that victims of pollution and other
environmental disasters would have access to judicial and administrative remedies..
 The parliament itself had passed laws about the establishment of the National
Environmental Tribunal (1995) and a National Environmental Appellate Tribunal
(1997). The appellate tribunal in this act was envisaged to award compensations in
case of environmental damages.
 Finally, the NGT act was passed in the parliament in 2010 and in October 2010 the
NGT was instituted.
 The formation of NGT was not without any difficulties as many petitions against it
were filed but the final institutionalization was done in 2010 and it started working
in early 2011.

DEHRADUN MUSSORIE QUARRYING CASE

Facts:
The petitioner in this case, RLEK, pleaded for closing down of large number of leases of
lime-stone quarries in the Doon valley of Dehradun, which were polluting the environment,
causing ecological imbalance and hazard to the health of not only human being but also of all
inanimate and animate things. On the other hand, the respondents, including both the State
and lime-stone quarry units, argued that closing down of lime-stone quarries would throw out
the owners out of business in which they have invested large sums of money and create
unemployment for the workers working in these lime-stone quarries.

Issue:
Whether the lime-stone quarries are liable to be shut down.

Decision:
1. The Supreme Court formed an expert committee chaired by D.N. Bhargav to inspect lime-stone
quarries mentioned in a petition.

2. The Bhargava Committee categorized the quarries into three groups: Category A with less
negative impact, Category B with more negative impact, and Category C.

3. The Court ordered the closure of Category C lime-stone quarries due to pronounced negative
impacts.

4. Category A and B quarries within Mussoorie's city limits were also closed, but those outside the
city were allowed to continue for industrial purposes, balancing industrial needs with
environmental concerns.

5. Concerned about the welfare of affected mine operators and staff, the Court directed priority to
be given to displaced lessees for new quarrying areas in Uttar Pradesh.

6. Afforestation and soil protection programs were mandated for closed quarries, and efforts were
made to provide alternative employment for affected workers.

Taj Trapezium Case

Facts of the case :-

 The petition was filed regarding the deteriorating condition of the monument. Due to the
pollution caused by the nearby industries and factories due to resdential fuel combustion,
dieasal trains, and buses, and backup generators, the gases emitted are having harmful
effects not on the people only but on the monument also.
 The petitioner said that pollution is the main cause for the yellow colour of the marble.
Emission of pollutant gases like sulphur dioxide and oxygen turned into acid rain which is
harmful for the environment and monument also. Therefore he asked for the protection of
the monument.
 As a result, the Central Board for the Prevention & Control of Water published “Inventory
and Assessment of Pollution Emission” in and around Agra-Mathura region. The report
declared the pollution levels as high and measures to reduce them.
 In report, one of measures were to shut down the thermal power stations. Another step
was to reduce omissions of Sulphur Dioxide by 50%.
Environmental law Principles applied in Taj Trapezium Case:-

 Sustainable development

 Precautionary Principle

 Polluter Pays Principle

Judgement

 The Supreme Court observed that other than Chemicals, Socio-economic factors too
influenced the degradation of Taj Mahal.
 By applying the principle of sustainable development , the court realised the necessity of
drawing a balance between environmental protection and economic development.
 Furthermore, the court recognized two more important principles known as the Polluter
Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle . In order to repair and prevent further
damage, the court advocated that the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ must be
practiced and that the polluter should be held liable to compensate the suffering
party/parties and must additionally pay the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The
judgement also relied tremendously upon the various reports that came to light. As the
court was extremely persistent upon the prevention of further degradation and destruction,
it ordered the neighbouring industries to either shift to natural gas or shut down the
operations of such industries and relocate outside the area of TTZ.
 The people living in the Trapezium zone were at the risk due to Air pollution. The court
ordered 292 industries to operate using safe fuels like propane instead of coke/coal
otherwise they would have to relocate.
 The Gas Authority of India Limited was in charges of application of Gas. The court also
gave few fundamental rights to workers of these industries and demanded payment of
their wages during the time taken for relocation.

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, is a comprehensive set of
regulations aimed at controlling and mitigating noise pollution in India. Here are some
important provisions of these rules with exact details and facts:

### Permissible Noise Levels (Rule 3):

1. **Industrial Area**:

- Daytime (6:00 AM to 10:00 PM): 75 decibels (dB) (A-weighted scale)

- Nighttime (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM): 70 dB (A-weighted scale)

2. **Commercial Area**:

- Daytime: 65 dB (A-weighted scale)

- Nighttime: 55 dB (A-weighted scale)

3. **Residential Area**:

- Daytime: 55 dB (A-weighted scale)

- Nighttime: 45 dB (A-weighted scale)

4. **Silence Zone (Area near hospitals, educational institutions, courts, etc.):**

- Daytime: 50 dB (A-weighted scale)

- Nighttime: 40 dB (A-weighted scale)

### Prohibition of Sound Amplification Equipment (Rule 5):

- The use of loudspeakers, public address systems, or any sound amplifying equipment is
prohibited in silence zones, except for permitted activities such as announcements by
government authorities or statutory bodies.

### Responsibilities of Local Authorities (Rule 7):

- Local authorities are responsible for the implementation of noise pollution control
measures within their jurisdiction.

- They must designate "No Horn" zones near hospitals, educational institutions, and courts.

### Restriction on Use of Loudspeakers (Rule 8):

- The use of loudspeakers or public address systems is restricted between 10:00 PM and 6:00
AM, except for permitted activities like public emergency announcements.

### Construction Activities (Rule 9):

- Construction activities are permitted only between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM, except for
emergencies declared by the local authority.

### Aircraft and Railways (Rule 10):

- Aircraft and railways must comply with noise standards specified by the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB).

### Responsibilities of State Governments (Rule 11):

- State governments must ensure compliance with noise standards and take measures to
prevent noise pollution.

- They are also responsible for monitoring noise levels and conducting awareness programs.

### Noise Monitoring (Rule 12):

- State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) must establish noise monitoring stations and
conduct regular noise level measurements in various zones.

### Penalties for Violation (Rule 13):

- Violation of noise pollution control rules may result in penalties, including fines and
imprisonment as per the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

### Public Awareness (Rule 14):

- Authorities must conduct public awareness campaigns about the harmful effects of noise
pollution and the importance of compliance with noise control regulations.

MC MEHTA VS UNION OF
INDIA: GANGA POLLUTION
CASE/ Kanpur tanneries case
Background of the case
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors is the 1st River pollution case to emerge in environmental
public interest legal proceeding.
For over a century, Kanpur has been a serious Centre for India’s tannery business and is one of
the three necessary industries next to paper and textiles. Most of those tanneries are situated on
the southern banks of the Ganga, outside of Kanpur, and are extremely contaminating. Among all
the cities of the state (Uttar Pradesh), Kanpur contributes to the vast pollution load into the Holy
Ganga.

Facts of the case

 1985 in the pilgrimage city of Haridwar, along the Ganga; a matchstick tossed by a
smoker resulted in the river catching on fire for more than 30 hours, due to the
presence of a toxic layer of chemicals produced by a pharmaceutical firm.
 In response to this incident M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer and social activist,
filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India against about 89
respondents, wherein Respondent 1, Respondent 7, Respondent 8 and Respondent 9
were Union of India in 1985.
  Mehta filed a petition (PIL) charging that, despite the advances created within the
code, government authorities had not taken effective steps to stop environmental
pollution of the stream Ganga.
 Mehta requested the court to order the animal skin (leather) tanneries of the district of
Kanpur to prevent discharging their untreated effluent into the stream. He additionally
claimed that the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur wasn’t endeavor treatment of
domestic biodegradable pollution.
Issues Raised
 Whether the authorities had paid attention to the worsening condition of the sacred
watercourse and had initiated probation into the matter?
 Whether any steps, had been taken by the state?
 Whether the smaller industries ought to be funded for fixing effluent treatment plants?
If yes, then what should be the standards to determine ‘smaller industries’?
Arguments from the Petitioner
The Petitioner had grieved that neither the authorities nor the individuals, whose lives were
intricately connected with the stream and directed laid low with it, perceived to concerning the
increasing levels of pollution of the Ganga and necessary steps were needed to stop an equivalent.

The Petitioner, within the capability of a lively public servant, had to sought-after a
writ/direction/order within the nature of writ, leading inter alia inhibiting the Respondents from
releasing cyanogenic effluents into the Ganga till they integrate applicable treatment plants to
treat the effluents to prevent pollution.

Arguments from the Respondents

None of the tanneries controversial the very fact that the effluent discharge from the tanneries
grossly pollutes the Ganga.

It was expressed that they discharge the trade effluents into the sewerage, that ends up in the
Municipal sewerage Plants before discharge into the stream.

Some tanneries expressed that they already had primary treatment plants, whereas some are
presently engaged within the same.

Some of the tanneries were members of the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce and a few of the
opposite tanneries bonded that with the approval of Respondent 8 (State Board), they might
construct primary treatment plants which might be operational at intervals a amount of six
months from the date of hearing and in failing to try and do therefore, can pack up their tanneries.

However, they argued that it might not be potential for them to determine secondary treatment
plants to treat the waste aqua because it would involve large expenditure that is on the far side
their means that.

- Petition requested Supreme Court to restrain respondents from discharging effluents into Ganga
without treatment plants.

- Court highlighted constitutional provisions emphasizing protection of environment and natural

resources.

- Emphasized Article 48-A and Article 51-A imposing duty on citizens to protect and improve
environment.
- Noted significance of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to prevent and
control pollution.

- Section 24 prohibits disposal of polluting matter into streams, including rivers like Ganga.

- Sections 16 and 17 outline powers and functions of Central and State Pollution Control Boards.

- Ordered tanneries to establish primary or secondary treatment plants as per circumstances.

- Financial capacity of tanneries deemed irrelevant in this context.

- Criticized lack of effective action by State Boards and Central Government despite legal
provisions.

- Relied on Article 52A (g) mandating protection and improvement of natural environment.

- Directed Central Government to include environmental lessons in school curriculum and provide
textbooks free of cost.

- Emphasized cleanliness for a healthy environment and proposed training programs for teachers.

- Case focused on discharge of trade effluents into Ganga, highlighting need for strict standards and
enforcement.

- Emphasized global environmental concepts and mandated industries to set up treatment plants
to curb pollution.

- Significance placed on environmental protection and balancing industrial needs with ecological
concerns.

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India (2001) / Anti smoking case

Brief facts
In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed by the Petitioner
highlighting the ill effects of smoking on both active and passive smokers. He
further highlighted the risks faced by non-smokers and their right to life
being affected by the actions of smokers smoking in public places.

Issue
Whether smoking in public places should be banned in light of the violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution?

Held
1. Tobacco smoking is injurious to health as it results in the
consumption and release of several harmful contents like nicotine,
tar, carcinogens etc. It also adds to air pollution.
 2. Tobacco smoking may cause cancer and other fatal diseases to
mankind.
3. The persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or
subject to passive smoking on account of the acts of the smokers.
4. The Court further directed the State and Central Governments to
take actions and ensure the prohibition of smoking in the following
public places:

 Auditoriums;
 Hospital buildings;
 Health institutions;
 Educational institutions;
 Libraries;
 Court buildings;
 Public offices;
 Public conveyances, including railways.

5. The Court further directed the Government to ensure wide publicity

of the order on the prohibition of smoking in public places and
spread awareness regarding the same to the general public.

HAUZ KHAS EATERIES CASE

he Hauz Khas eateries case began when activist Pankaj Sharma filed a complaint
against restaurants in Hauz Khas Village, South Delhi, for releasing untreated
waste and emitting smoke. The restaurants were found guilty under Section 33A of
the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The restaurants were sealed
until they made changes to comply with the laws and reapplied for licenses. The
national green tribunal (NGT) directed the restaurants to close 33, and the
remaining ones to develop effluent plant treatments before reopening.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India –

Delhi Ridge Case – Case Summary
Issue Raised

1. Whether the mining activity in area up to 5 kilometers from the Delhi-

Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and Aravalli hills causes
environment degradation?
2. Whether the mining activity deserves to be absolutely banned or
permitted on compliance of stringent conditions and by monitoring it to
prevent the environmental pollution?

Submissions and proceedings

The Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) found that mining activities near
Badkal Lake and Surajkund were causing significant environmental damage. They
recommended an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and a stoppage of
mining within a 5 km radius of these tourist spots. The Supreme Court, based on
reports from HPCB and NEERI, agreed that mining was harming the local ecology
and ordered a halt within a 2 km radius of the resorts.

Final Order

1. The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable

development and on compliance of stringent conditions.
2. The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case despite
stringent condition, there is an adverse irreversible effect on the ecology
in the Aravalli hill range area, at a later date, the total stoppage of mining
activity in the area may have to be considered. For similar reasons such
step may have to be considered in respect of mining in Faridabad District
as well.
3. Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk of cancellation of
mining lease. The mining activity shall continue only on strict
compliance of the stipulated conditions. The matters are directed to be
listed after reopening of courts after summer vacation on receipt of the
report from the Monitoring Committee

VISHAKAPATNAM GAS LEAK CASE

Introduction
Vishakhapatnam Gas leak was an accident happened in the industry of LG polymers in RR
Venkatapuram village near Gopalapuram on the outskirts of Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India
on the early morning of 7th May, 2020 killing about 13 people and making 1000's of people sick and
unconscious after being exposed to the gas. The tragedy was totally avoidable and could have been
managed with the proper functioning and check on the industry.

A harmful deadly styrene monomer vapour leaked out of a storage tank in LG Polymers which is a
chemical plant owned by South Korea-based LG Chemicals. Due to the covid 19 outbreak in the
country, the plant was not operating for almost 40 days and the temperature difference at the
bottom and top portion led to the formation of vapour which later led to the gas leak. Fortunately,
the styrene monomer is quite heavy and can not spread in an area of more than a 1.5 km radius
therefore a large area was saved.

The police came into force and a large number of people, say, 2500 were evacuated from the place
and shifted to camps and other safe places. Other injured patients were rapidly taken to the hospitals
and were provided adequate medication and treatment.

Vizag Gas Leak

Vishakhapatnam or The Vizag Gas Leak was a deadly and dangerous incident happened in recent
times. Vishakhapatnam is a state situated in Andhra Pradesh, India. On the early morning of 7th May
2020, a bunch of people started to feel drowsiness, nausea, breathlessness and also started to smell
something pungent. In no time they started dating and fainting because of the low supply of the
oxygen to the blood and brain.

Andhra Pradesh government also donated Rs 1 Crore each for the kin of the deceased and for those
who were injured in the incident making a total of 30 crores.

It is said in the investigation that the company also didn't have the environmental clearance issued
by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Chemical change (MoEFCC). LG Chemicals have expanded
its operations at LG Polymers plant five times between 2006 and 2018 without clearance as
according to the EIA notification (amendment) of 2006 under the Environment and Protection Act of
1986, LG chemicals falls into a petrochemical Industry category A and is liable to get a clearance from
MoEFCC each time they plan to expand their plant or bring a change to the products being
manufactured after November 2006.

In India, there are two no fault liabilities, namely:

Strict Liability

Absolute Liability

Strict Liability says that any person who keeps hazardous substances in their premises and it escapes
out creating some danger around is held to be strictly liable for it and has to pay the damages
responsible for it.

Absolute Liability on the other hand was introduced in India being given no exception. Absolute
Liability concerns only those enterprises that are involved in dangerous and hazardous activities or
substances and even if it does not escape out of the premises and still creates any damage in the
environment or the surrounding around is liable to pay the compensation and damages. The
compensation to be paid is directly proportionate to the price of the enterprise.

After the inquiry of the accident, the NGT ordered LG Polymers India to deposit an amount of Rs 50
crore with the Vizag DM. the amount of compensation is derived from the actual value of the plant.
It is usually directly proportionate to that of the price value of the enterprise.

Also, Andhra Pradesh government donated Rs 1 Crore each for the kin of the deceased and for those
who were injured in the incident making a total of 30 crores.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case Study

Background
The Union Carbide Corporation, an American enterprise established a
pesticide plant in India because of its central location.

While this pesticide was produced, a toxic liquid was also produced i.e.,
Methyl Isocyanate (MIC). Since MIC is a very toxic chemical it required great
maintenance.

Around midnight on 3-4 December 1984, the MIC gas got leaked from the
plant and got mixed with the fresh air in Bhopal. Suddenly, people started
feeling uneasy, started vomiting, were having trouble while breathing, people
started dying within a few minutes of inhaling the toxic gas. It was not only
the human beings that suffered but animals, too, suffered and lost their
lives.

It was reported that nearly 3000 people lost their lives and more than 6 lacs
were severely injured. The survivors survived with permanent respiratory
problems, and other complications. Children who weren’t even born at that
time were born with some health issues.

 Cause of Leakage
Though the main reason for the tragedy was the mixing of water with the
Methyl Isocyanate because of leaks in the connecting pipes yet it was not the
only reason that contributed towards the happening of the tragedy. There
are many other reasons which contributed to this unfortunate event. All
these small reasons are because of the lack of proper maintenance.

Following are the reasons that, too, have contributed to the Bhopal tragedy:

 and cooling system were closed down before 150 days of the accident
 To lower the cost number of workers working were reduced.
 Also, specialized training was not given to unskilled workers so that
they could at least have an idea about the consequences of their
actions.
 As already mentioned, before this major tragedy there had already
been minor leakages which cost the life of one worker and others were
injured.
 No supervisor was there for his night shift.
 The pressure control valve of the tank E610 had not been working
properly for over a month.
 Negligence on the part of the maintenance authorities.
 There was no backup plan in case of emergencies.
1989, the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and the Union of India settled the
Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The settlement included a $470 million payment from UCC
to the Union of India. The Supreme Court upheld the settlement in 1991, rejecting
the Union's request for more compensation. The court also ordered the Indian
government to:
 Buy a group medical insurance policy for 100,000 people who may develop
symptoms later
 Cover any shortfall in the settlement fund
 Request UCC and its subsidiary UCIL to fund a hospital for victims at an estimated
$17 million

Oleum Gas Leak Case

The Oleum Gas Leak Case, also known as MC Mehta v. Union of India, is a landmark
environmental case in India. It involved a gas leak incident at the Shriram Food and Fertiliser
Industries plant, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, situated in Kirti Nagar, Delhi.

In December 1985, there was an escape of oleum gas from one of the units at the factory,
which resulted in severe harm to the people who were exposed to the gas. The incident raised
concerns about the safety and environmental standards of the factory and its potential impact
on the surrounding community.

MC Mehta, a public interest attorney, filed a writ petition under Articles 21 and 32 of
the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, seeking the closure and relocation of the
hazardous plant. During the legal proceedings, questions were raised about the scope of the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, the liability of enterprises engaged in hazardous activities, and
the need to modernize liability standards in such cases.

MC Mehta vs Union of India – Background

In the city of Kirti Nagar, Delhi, there was a privately owned fertilizer plant called Shriram
Food and Fertilisers Ltd., which was situated in a densely populated area where around
200,000 people lived. Due to the plant’s chemical processes, it released hazardous substances
(oleum gas), causing a public nuisance.

In response to the harmful emissions and to seek closure and relocation of the Shriram
Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant, a public interest attorney named MC Mehta filed
a writ petition to the Supreme Court on December 4 and 6, 1985, invoking Articles 21 and
32.

While the lawsuit was ongoing, there was an incident known as the Oleum Gas Leak case at
one of the factory’s plants, resulting in severe harm to those who breathed in the gas.
Tragically, the leak also claimed the life of one of the lawyers practising at the Tis Hazari
Court.

The situation worsened when the factory collapsed two days after the leakage incident, and
there was another minor incident of oleum gas leakage at the site.

Taking swift action under sub-section (1) of Section 133, the Delhi Magistrate ordered
Shriram Food and Fertiliser to stop manufacturing lethal substances such as Chlorine, Super
Chlorine, Oleum, Phosphate, and others.

Facts of the Oleum Gas Leak Case

In the writ petition under Article 32 for the oleum gas leak case, the petitioners requested
the Supreme Court to issue a directive for the closure of various units of Shriram Foods &
Fertilizers Industries, citing their hazardous nature and potential harm to the community.

While the petition was being considered, an incident occurred where oleum gas escaped from
one of Shriram’s units. In response to this incident, the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board
and the Delhi Bar Association filed applications seeking compensation for the individuals
who had suffered harm due to the escape of oleum gas.

Issues
A panel of three Hon’ble Judges in the oleum gas leak case permitted Shriram to restart its
power plant and other plants, subject to specific conditions. However, they referred the
applications for compensation to a larger Bench of five Judges due to the involvement of
significant constitutional issues. These issues include:

 The scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, as the
applications for compensation were sought under that Article.
 Whether Article 21 (Right to Life) applies to Shriram, owned by Delhi Cloth Mills
Limited, a public company limited by shares, the company is engaged in an industry
vital to the public interest. It has the potential to impact the life and health of people.
 Determining the level of liability of an enterprise involved in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry, where accidents may result in loss of life or injuries.
The question is whether the rule established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866 Law Report
1 Exchequer 265) applies or if there is another principle that should govern the
determination of liability in such cases.

Judgement in Oleum Gas Leak Case

After considering the applications, the Court made the following rulings in the Oleum gas
leak case:

Scope of Application of Article 21 to Private Corporation Like Shriram Foods

& Fertilizers Industries

The question of whether a private corporation like Shriram falls within the scope and ambit
of Article 12, making it amenable to the discipline of Article 21, is left for further detailed
consideration at a later stage if necessary.

The Court referred to various previous cases, including Rajasthan Electricity Board v.
Mohan Lal, Sukhdev v. Bhagwat Ram, Ramanna Shetty v. International Airport
Authority, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, and Som Prakash v. Union of India, among others,
for relevant legal context and precedents.

Please note that the Court has not conclusively decided in the oleum gas leak case on whether
Shriram is subject to the discipline of Article 21 (Right to Life) under Article 12. They have
kept this question open for potential further examination if required in the future.

Compensation for Victims of Oleum Gas

The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board is instructed to handle the cases of all individuals
who claim to have suffered due to the oleum gas leak. The Board should file actions on their
behalf in the appropriate Court to claim compensation. The Delhi Administration is also
directed to provide the necessary funds to the Board for this purpose.

Public-Spirited Individuals and Social Action Groups as Plaintiffs

In cases where there is a violation of a fundamental or legal right of a person or a group of

people who are unable to approach a court of law for justice due to poverty, disability, or
social and economic disadvantages, any public-spirited individual or social action group can
take action on their behalf.
This can be done by filing regular writ petitions under Article 226 in the High Court or under
Article 32 in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, even if a letter is addressed to an individual
Judge of the Court, it should be entertained, provided it is on behalf of a person in custody, a
woman, a child, or a class of deprived or disadvantaged persons.

The Court provided further instructions regarding letters addressed to individual Justices of
the Court:

1. Letters addressed to individual Justices of the Court should not be rejected solely based on
the absence of a preferred form of address.

2. The Court should not rigidly require letters to be supported by an affidavit for them to be
entertained. Requiring an affidavit as a condition for entertaining letters would defeat the
purpose of the epistolary jurisdiction. This jurisdiction aims to facilitate easy access to the
Court for poor and disadvantaged individuals and social action groups. Requiring affidavits
might make it difficult for such individuals and groups to approach the Court.

The Court cites previous cases, including Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India &
Ors., S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, and Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of
India, as references for these instructions in MC Mehta versus Union of India.

Article 32: Powers and Obligations of the Court

The Court made the following observations in the oleum gas leak case regarding the powers
and obligations under Article 32:

 Article 32 not only empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but it also imposes a constitutional obligation on
the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people. To fulfil this obligation, the
Court has the authority to develop new remedies and strategies to enforce
fundamental rights, especially for the poor and disadvantaged, who are often denied
their basic human rights.
 The power of the Court is not limited to preventing the infringement of fundamental
rights but also includes providing remedial relief against a breach of fundamental
rights that has already occurred.
 The Court can award compensation in appropriate cases as part of remedial relief.
However, such infringement must be evident, gross, and affecting many people or
should appear unjust or harsh for those financially or socially disadvantaged to pursue
action in Civil Courts.
 Ordinarily, a petition under Article 32 should not be used as a substitute for claiming
compensation through the regular process of Civil Courts. Compensation may be
awarded in exceptional cases under Article 32.
 The applications for compensation in the present writ petition seek enforcement of the
fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In dealing with such
applications, the Court must avoid a hyper-technical approach defeating justice’s
ends. The substance of the claim should be considered, not just the form.
The Court refers to various previous cases, including Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India & Ors., S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v.
Union of India, and Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, as references for these observations.
Modernizing Liability in Hazardous Industries

In the past, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher laid down a principle of liability that held a
person responsible if they brought something onto their land that could cause harm and if it
escaped and caused damage to someone else. However, this rule applied only to non-natural
land use and had exceptions, such as acts of God, actions by strangers, or consent of the
injured party.

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher evolved in the 19th century when advancements in science
and technology had not yet taken place. As a result, this rule cannot serve as a suitable guide
in determining liability consistent with today’s constitutional norms and the requirements of
the modern economy and society.

In today’s industrialized society with advanced scientific knowledge and technology,

hazardous and inherently dangerous industries play a crucial role in development. Therefore,
the Court in MC Mehta vs U.O.I. should not feel constrained by the old rule of strict
liability and absolute liability when dealing with enterprises engaged in such activities.

The Dynamic Nature of Law and Expanding Human Rights Jurisprudence

The law needs to evolve to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society and keep pace
with the economic developments in the country. It cannot remain static. The Court should not
limit its thinking by referring only to the laws of England or any other foreign country.

While it may draw insights from various sources, it must build its jurisprudence, create new
principles, and establish norms that effectively address the new challenges arising in a highly
industrialized economy. If necessary, the Court should construct new law principles to handle
unique situations related to hazardous or inherently dangerous industries that are prevalent in
an industrial economy.

Expanding the Scope of Article 12

Over the years, this Court has expanded the scope of Article 12 primarily to promote respect
for human rights and social conscience within corporate structures. This expansion aims to
advance human rights jurisprudence. Including private corporations within the ambit of
Article 12, thus subjecting them to the discipline of Article 21 concerning the right to life and
personal liberty does not seek to undermine the purpose of creating corporations or impede
private entrepreneurial activity. The Court opined in the Oleum gas leak case.

Instead, it empowers the human rights movement by creatively interpreting the law and
promoting bold innovation. Unfounded apprehensions expressed by those seeking to maintain
the status quo should not hinder human rights progress in India.

Strict Liability and Compensation in Hazardous Industries

An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, which poses a

potential threat to the health and safety of its workers and the surrounding community, has an
absolute non-delegable duty towards the community. It must ensure that the hazardous
activity is conducted with the highest safety standards. Suppose any harm occurs to anyone
due to the activity. In that case, the enterprise must be obligated to compensate for it, even if
it had taken all reasonable precautions and was not negligent.

When an enterprise is permitted to conduct a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for

profit, the law should presume that this permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing
the cost of any accidents arising from such activity as a necessary part of its overheads. The
enterprise, the party with the resources and knowledge, is best suited to identify and guard
against hazards and warn about potential dangers.

The measure of compensation in such cases should be linked to the size and capacity of the
enterprise to have a deterrent effect. Larger and more prosperous enterprises should be liable
to pay greater compensation for harm caused due to accidents during their hazardous
activities.

Relevance of the American Doctrine of State Action in Indian Courts

The historical context in which the American doctrine of State action evolved in the United
States is not directly relevant for Indian Courts, particularly considering Article 15(2) of the
Indian Constitution. However, the underlying principle behind State aid, control, and
regulation doctrine, which imbues a private activity with the colour of State action, can be
partially adapted and harmoniously blended with Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The American exposition of constitutional law does not bind Indian Courts. The provisions of
the American Constitution may not always be directly applicable to Indian conditions or the
provisions of the Indian Constitution. While some principles from American decisions may
offer useful guidance, strict adherence to those principles while applying them to the Indian
Constitution should not be favoured, as the social conditions in India differ from those in the
United States.

Cases like Ramanna Shetty v. International Airport Authority, Jackson v. Metropolitan

Edison Co., Air India v. Nargesh Mirza, and General Electric Co. Maratha v. Gilbert
provide relevant insights and serve as a guide for Indian Courts while adapting and
incorporating the principles of State action in the Indian context.

Oleum Gas Leakage Case Summary

The Oleum Gas Leakage case involved a privately-owned fertilizer plant, Shriram Food and
Fertilisers Ltd., in the densely populated Kirti Nagar, Delhi area. The plant emitted hazardous
substances, posing a public nuisance and a potential threat to the health of around 200,000
people residing nearby.

A public interest attorney, MC Mehta, filed a writ petition under Articles 21 and 32 of the
Indian Constitution, seeking the closure and relocation of the factory’s Shriram Caustic
Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant. During the legal proceedings, an incident of Oleum Gas
Leak occurred at one of the factory’s plants, causing severe harm to those who inhaled the
gas and tragically resulting in the death of a lawyer practising at the Tis Hazari Court.

The Delhi Magistrate took immediate action and ordered the shutdown of manufacturing
lethal substances, including Chlorine, Super Chlorine, Oleum, Phosphate, etc., in accordance
with Section 133 of the law. Additionally, applications were filed for compensation for those
who suffered harm due to the gas leak in this oleum gas leak case.

The case raised crucial legal questions in the Oleum gas leak case, such as the scope of the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 and whether Article 21 applies to private
corporations engaged in industries vital to the public interest. Furthermore, the Court
discussed the measure of liability for enterprises involved in hazardous activities and the need
to modernize liability standards to align with present-day needs and challenges. Ultimately,
the Oleum gas leak case exemplified the importance of balancing industrial development with
public safety and environmental concerns.

brick kiln industries

- An order was issued on May 10, 1996, requiring brick kiln industries to shut down without
compensation, based on a report from the Delhi Pollution Control Board (DPCB)
categorizing them under Category "H".

- No notice was given to the brick kiln owners, leading to objections and a writ petition for
modification.

- The Master Plan of 1990 called for the relocation of these industries within three years, as
they were located on agricultural land.

- An affidavit by D.S. Negi of the DPCB confirmed the industries' categorization under "H"
and outlined compensation measures for affected employees.

- The technology of fly-ash sand lime mixture, despite its effectiveness, requires significant
investment and time.

- A last opportunity was given to states to transition to cleaner technology or face closure,
emphasizing the importance of a quality conversion.

- Challenges include improper design leading to air movement hindrance, lack of

stack/emission monitoring facilities, cracks, leaks, and fuel storage issues in kiln industries.

- Illegal operations continue to be a problem, as noted by Vijay Goel and Sailesh Singh's
petitions regarding non-compliance with pollution norms in various states.

- The Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority mandated the shift to Zigzag
technology, emphasizing the need for compliance with surveys and records.

Gamma chamber case in JNU

The M.C Mehta v. Union Of India and Others case was a public interest litigation
filed in 1987 against a gamma chamber at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in
Delhi. The case was decided on March 12, 1987, and the chamber was ordered to
be sent to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Bombay for recharging.
The case protected Delhi from harmful radiation and saved students and teachers at
JNU from hazardous radiation. The judges' final decision was to relocate factories
like this one to less populated areas so they wouldn't threaten human life. The court
also suggested that the government adopt a national policy for the location of toxic
plants.

COAL MINING IN MEGHALAYA CASE

The issue discussed pertains to the prohibition of 'Rat Hole' Mining of coal in
Meghalaya due to its adverse environmental impact and safety hazards. It started
with a tragic incident in 2012 where 30 coal laborers were trapped, leading to 15
deaths. This prompted the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to take action, directing
Meghalaya to stop rat hole mining and illegal coal transport.

Subsequently, a committee was formed to quantify extracted coal, assess its value,
and plan its transportation. The committee found 6.3 million tonnes of illegally
mined coal, leading to a directive to halt mining and transport, with coal custody
vested in the state.

The NGT then directed the formation of a monitoring committee headed by a

former High Court Judge to oversee environmental restoration and victim
rehabilitation. The committee recommended actions like replacing rat hole mining
with appropriate technology, conducting health surveys, and developing disaster
management plans.

Further, the Supreme Court upheld NGT's jurisdiction and directed the handing
over of extracted coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal, with proceeds going to the
state after deductions. The court also stressed compliance with environmental and
mining laws.

The monitoring committee's reports highlighted incomplete implementations of

orders, necessitating measures like deploying central forces, releasing funds for
environmental restoration, and ensuring proper coal transport mechanisms.
Overall, the prohibition of rat hole mining stemmed from its environmental
degradation and safety risks, leading to extensive regulatory and remedial
measures by the NGT and the Supreme Court.

Case Brief: M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath

and others
Brief Facts of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others
1. Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. was a private company held by the owner of Span
Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club.

2. Mr. Kamal Nath (the then Minister of Environment and Forests) had a direct
contact with the owner of Span Motels. He leased out 27.12 bighas of land to
the Company for their project.

3. Due to this permission given, led to the encroachment of Beas river and due
to the pressure from construction work of the project, the river changed its
course which led to washing away of the adjoining lawns.

4. The Owners used bulldozers and earthmovers which led to a change of

course of the Beas river. This was done to protect the motel from floods due
to the river in future.

Issues in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others

1. Was the construction undertaken by the Company legal and justified?

2. Is the court correct in making Mr. Kamal Nath a respondent in the current
case?

Holding (Applied rule of law)

The public trust doctrine, as discussed by the Court in this judgment was a
part of the law of the land.

Analysis
The construction work of the Motel caused a lot of pollution and even
diverted the course of the river as stated in the facts. Pollution is a civil wrong
and it is like a tort committed against the entire community. The lease
deed granted to the Motel Company by the Government, lead to the
Company encroaching of 27.12 bighas of forest land. A PIL was filed by Mr.
M.C. Mehta against Mr. Kamal Nath (the then Minister of Forest and
Environment) and Ors. The court through the facts disclosed during the court
hearing and sumbissions, said that it would be true, that the said construction
would be a serious act of environmental degradation.

After this, the Public Trust Doctrine was applied in this case. This theory was
first developed by the ancient Roman Empire. Under the Roman Law these
resources were either owned by no one (res Nullious) or by every one in
common (Res Communious).

The Supreme Court in this case mentioned that: The Public Trust Doctrine
primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air sea, waters and
the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it
would be wholly onjustilled to make them a subject of private ownership. The
said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to
everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the
Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public
rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.

The Court held that: “Coming to the facts of the present case, large area of the
bank of river Beas which is part of protected forest has been given on a lease
purely for commercial purposes to the Motels. We have no hesitation in
holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government committed patent breach of
public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management.
Both the lease – transactions are in patent breach of the trust held by the State
Government. The second lease granted in the year 1994 was virtually of the
land which is a part of river-bed. Even the board in its report has
recommended deleasing of the said area.”

Natural resources should be freely available to people irrespective of their

status or standard of living as it is a gift of nature and it is for the benefit of
public at large. In this case, the Government is the trustee in whose hand the
protection of river beas is given, the public is the beneficiary. Hence, it is the
duty of Government to protect the Beas river.

Similar cases where public trust doctrine was applied:

a. M.I. Builders vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu (AIR 1999 SC 2468)

b. Mrs. Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors (AIR 2006 SC 2893)

Judgment: M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others

1.The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the Laws of the Land. 1

2. The lease deed in favour of the Motel was quashed.

3. Cost of Restitution was charged to the Motel Company for the loss caused
to the environment and the natural resources.

4. The Motel shall construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4
meters from the cluster of rooms (main building of the Motel) towards the
river basin. The boundary wall shall be on the area of the Motel which is
covered by the lease dated September 29, 1981. The Motel shall not
encroach/cover/utilize any part of the river basin. The boundary wall shall
separate the Motel building from the river basin. The riverbank and the river
basin shall be left open for the public use.

5. Untreated effluent shouldn’t be discharged in the river.

6. Span Motels was additionally required to show why they shouldn’t pay
pollution fine, compliant with the polluter pays principle.

Conclusion

The Public Trust Doctrine is an important tool to protect our environment from
any kind of arbitrary decision taken by the Government officials. In this age, it
is very important to have such kind of doctrine to protect the environment and
to ensure sustainable development.

Case analysis of the Art of Living

Foundation : environmental
compensation/shri shri ravi
shankar case/ Yamuna
conservation zone case
Introduction
Human activities impacting the environment are ever-increasing. It is
happening all over the world including India. The benefits that nature
provides us are so enticing that we often fail to assess the price that the
environment has to pay for them. Complete suspension of development
activities, in today’s world, is perhaps an impossible idea as the economy
outweighs all other considerations. Thus, the concept of environmental
compensation has gained ground to address the issue.

Facts
1. Founded in 1981 by Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, The Art of Living
Foundation is a Non-Governmental Organization working on
humanitarian and educational matters.
2. In March 2016, this organization staged a three-day cultural event –
the World Cultural Festival from 11th to 13th March, at the Yamuna
floodplains in New Delhi. It was organized to celebrate 35 years of the
organization since its inception.
3. The Yamuna banks are considered to be ecologically very fragile but
the arrangements for the festival were stupendous. A 7-acre stage,
claimed to be the largest in the world, and capable of accommodating
35,000 musicians and dancers, was set up. New dirt tracks were built,
in addition to 650 portable toilets spread over a thousand acres of
area. According to the organizers, the event was attended by 35 lakh
people and over 20,000 international guests.
4. A petition was filed on 8th February 2016 before the National Green
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, being Original Application (OA) No
65 of 2016 by Sri Manoj Mishra, a retired officer of the Indian Forest
Service against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Several
miscellaneous petitions were clubbed with this OA and the respondent
parties, other than DDA, was the Art of Living (AOL) Foundation, the
Ministry of Environment & Forest and Climate Change.
Shri Mishra had earlier filed a written complaint against the respondents to
the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11th December, 2015 and later filed the present
application before the NGT.
Issues
1. Whether the Yamuna floodplains and wetlands have been and are being
destroyed ecologically, environmentally and biologically by the Art of
Living Foundation.
2. In the event of such adverse environmental impact and consequence, if
any, whether the organizers are liable to pay any compensation or fine
for such damage and restore the venue to its pre-existing condition.

Relevant laws
1. Section 33A of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act (1974)
2. Section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act (1986)
3. Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act (2010)
4. Section 17(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act (2010)
5. Section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act (2010)
6. Section 2(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act (2010)
7. Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act (2010)
8. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
9. Article 48A of the Constitution of India
10. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India

Arguments by both the sides

Arguments made by the petitioners

It was prayed in the OA that the event be stalled as it would be an
environmental disaster and set a dangerous precedent for the future. It was
further prayed that the respondent no 3 (The Art of Living Foundation) be
fined heavily for degradation of the environment and be instructed to restore
the entire venue to its pre-existing condition.

Arguments made by the respondents

Respondent no.1, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), argued that the
area did not fully come under its jurisdiction.

Respondent no. 2, the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change,

argued that river Yamuna, being a tributary of river Ganga comes under its
jurisdiction but since the constructions being done on the floodplains were
small and temporary, it did not require the Ministry’s permission. It further
took the plea that the task of protecting the floodplains lies with the Ministry
of Water Resources.

Respondent no. 3, the Art of Living Foundation, argued that it had taken all
the necessary approvals and clearances from different regulatory bodies and
then only it started the construction works. AOL further said that it was not
bound by the tenets of the Yamuna Judgement because it was not a party to
the said judgement and hence, it cannot be held liable for the destruction of
the floodplains. It was further claimed by respondent no 3 that the
floodplains had already been destroyed long ago by agricultural activities,
dumping of debris and by other activities.

- Judgment

pertained to petitions against Art of Living Foundation for organizing a

cultural festival on Yamuna Floodplains.

- Petitioners alleged environmental damage due to event preparations.

- Interim order on 9th March 2016: AOL to pay Rs 5 Crore compensation.

- Final judgment on 7th December 2017: AOL liable for floodplain damages
under DDA jurisdiction.

- AOL responsible for restoring allotted floodplain area to pre-event condition

using Rs 5 Crore compensation.

- DDA can recover additional compensation for extra restoration work;

surplus refunded to AOL.

- DDA criticized for environmental protection failure but not fined due to
planned biodiversity park and environmental improvements.

- Tribunal didn't rule on event legality but focused on pollution resolution

within legal framework.

Analysis
- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is an expert body dealing with
environmental issues, including awarding compensation for environmental
damages.

- Compensation helps in environmental restoration and reflects scientific

analysis by the tribunal.

- NGT has wide discretion in awarding compensation, guided by principles of

sustainable development, polluter payment, and precaution.

- Analysis of the Art of Living Foundation Case reveals shortcomings in

scientific approach and objective criteria in determining compensation.

- Initial compensation recommendation by Expert Committee was Rs 120

Crore, reduced to Rs 28.73 Crore, finally settled at Rs 5 Crore.

- Lack of scientific assessment evident in reliance on visual estimation,

contradictory findings on floodplain condition, and failure to quantify
vegetation loss accurately.

- NGT didn't hold government organizations accountable for event

permissions or pre-existing environmental damage.

- Reduction in compensation raises questions about methodology and

transparency in NGT's decision-making.

- NGT's reluctance to use its expertise effectively may lead to public distrust
in its ability to handle environmental issues involving scientific uncertainty.

ROHTANG PASS GLACIER CASE

- In February 2014, India's National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued a ruling on

its own motion regarding environmental issues around the Rohtang Pass in
Himachal Pradesh.

- NGT has jurisdiction over civil cases related to environmental questions

under several environmental protection statutes.

- NGT found that Black Carbon emissions, particularly from vehicles,

contribute significantly to glacial melting in the Himalayan region.
- NGT cited a study indicating that 40% of glacial retreat is due to Black
Carbon impact and concluded that reducing Black Carbon emissions can help
address glacial melting.

- The ruling was based on Indian citizens' right to a clean environment, as

stated in the Constitution's Article 48A, 51A, and 21.

- Although the court recognized the role of greenhouse gas emissions in

global warming and applied the "polluter pays" principle, it did not hold
Himachal Pradesh responsible for mitigating global warming directly.

- However, NGT ordered Himachal Pradesh to implement measures to reduce

pollution, including random pollution checks, using compressed natural gas
and electric buses, and initiating a reforestation program.

- These measures are overseen by a Monitoring Committee reporting

quarterly to the court.

MC Mehta vs. Union of India

(1986) : case analysis/ closure of
industries in delhi case


Introduction
MC Mehta, known as the Green Avenger of India, is an Indian public interest
attorney and environmental activist who has single-handedly won multiple
landmark judgments in several public interest litigations (PILs) filed on
environmental issues. For his activities and concerns to protect the
environment, he is also known as the “green lawyer of India”.

The 1986 case titled MC Mehta v. Union of India, with MC Mehta being the
petitioner-in-person himself has become a landmark judgement in
environmental activism in India. The case is significant in various regards.
The judgement, after the deadly Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, changed the
scope, extent, and application of not only the environmental laws in India but
also that of Article 21 dealing with the right to life and personal liberty
and Article 32 dealing with remedies for violations of fundamental rights of
the Constitution of India.
The present article enumerates the judgments passed in this case by the
Supreme Court of India and also explores the underlying legal issues and
findings of the Court as well as several newly evolved legal principles from
this case.

Background of the case

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., had several units situated in a
single complex comprising land of approximately 76 acres in a densely
populated area around it. The enterprise manufactured various chemicals like
caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, alum, anhydrous
sodium sulphate, high test hypochlorite and active earth and regularly used
products such as bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaspati and soap.
The caustic chlorine plant in question was commissioned in 1949 and had a
strength of 263 employees.

After the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, the Central Government appointed a
firm named ‘Technica’ to inspect the caustic chlorine plant owned by
Shriram, and a preliminary report identifying potential areas of concern and
suggestions for improvement were submitted by the firm.

In March 1985, the possibility and dangers of any major leakage from the
caustic chlorine plant of Shriram were discussed in Parliament. In response
to that, an expert committee called the Manmohan Singh Committee was
constituted to further inspect the caustic chlorine plant. They submitted a
report after a detailed inspection with recommendations for various safety
and pollution control measures.

The petitioner-in-person MC Mehta filed the first Civil Writ Petition 12739 of
1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to seek a direction for the
closure of various industrial units owned by Shriram Foods & Fertilisers
Industries (here-in-after referred to as ‘Shriram’ for convenience) since they
were located in a heavily populated area in Delhi and were hazardous to the
people living in the vicinity.

During the pendency of the abovementioned petition, there was an incident

of leakage of Oleum gas from one of the industrial units of Shriram for which
awards of compensation were filed by both the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

Another Civil Writ Petition 26 of 1986 was filed by Shriram contesting the
validity of multiple orders asking to stop their production.
The Supreme Court laid down several new legal principles in the case. The
landmark judgments were the result of two Civil Writ Petitions 12739 of 1985
and 26 of 1986.

The first order, passed by a three judges bench consisting of the then Chief
Justice of India, PN Bhagwati along with Justice DP Madon and GL Oza on
17th February 1986, dealt with whether the caustic chlorine plant owned by
Shriram Foods and Fertilisers should be allowed to be reopened or not.

Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries filed an application for clarification.

The Court found the application asking for modification of certain orders and
based on the order for which the Supreme Court pronounced
another order on 10th March 1986.

The final judgement separately dealing with constitutionally significant

questions was pronounced by a five-judge bench (also known as the
Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India) on 20th
December 1986.

Facts of the case

On 4th December 1985, an incident of a major leakage of oleum gas
happened from one of the units of Shriram. The leakage physically affected
many common public – both the workmen as well as common people
outside. Moreover, an advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Court died after
inhaling oleum gas. The incident was confirmed by both the petitioner and
the Delhi Bar Association. After two days, another minor leakage of oleum
gas took place from the joints of a pipe on 6th December.

Due to the subsequent two incidents of oleum gas leakage, the Delhi
administration immediately responded by issuing an order under Section
133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which directed Shriram to
take the following steps:

 To stop using harmful chemicals and gases in the unit within two days;
 Remove the said chemicals to a safer place within seven days and not
keep or store the chemicals in the same place where the disaster
happened again;
 Or, to appear in the Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to show cause
for the non-enforceability of the mentioned order on 17th December
1985.
On the next day, both the above-mentioned writ petitions came up for
hearing in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also took cognisance of
the above order by the District Magistrate and noted that due to the
“inadequacies”, it is not possible to take the steps urgently.
Steps taken by the Supreme Court and
administrations
Firstly, the Supreme Court, before taking the writ petitions for hearing on 7th
December, 1985, appointed a team of experts called the “Nilay Choudhary
Committee” to perform an inspection of the caustic chlorine plant and to
report whether the recommendations of the Manmohan Singh Committee
were properly implemented or not. The team conducted a “cursory
inspection” for a few hours and reported verbally that most of the
recommendations were implemented by the management of the plant and
the main sources of hazard, two tanks of chlorine, each with the capacity of
one hundred MT, were emptied.

Secondly, the Court also gave the petitioner the liberty to appoint his own
team of experts and was directed to have access to the caustic chlorine plant
for inspection of any possible sources of hazards to the workmen and
common people and further checking of the implementation of the
recommendations of the committee.

Thirdly, the Court appointed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom
the victims of oleum gas leakage can claim compensation. The Court also
directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Aid and Advice Board to ensure
the medical checkup of the victims by experts to gather evidence against the
compensation claimed in the incident.

Steps by the administration

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi formed an expert committee called the
“Seturaman Committee” on 4th December, 1985, immediately after the first
leakage, to inspect the following:

 Examine the reasons for the leakage and the effects;

 Whether proper safety measures and rules were properly followed by
the management;
 Persons responsible for the leakage;
 Reviewing emergency measures for further risks;
 Examination of risks and hazards from the factory on common people
and make specific recommendations; and
 Advise whether the location of the company should be shifted or not;
The report of the Committee mainly dealt with the safety measures in the
sulphuric acid plant where the oleum gas leakage took place but was referred
to by the Supreme Court since it was relevant regarding the risks and safety
measures to be taken in the caustic chlorine to minimise dangers to the
common people.

During the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on 7th December, 1985,
the Inspector of Factories in Delhi exercised the powers given under Section
40(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and banned Shriram from any further use of
both the caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants until proper and adequate
safety measures were adopted to eliminate the risks posed to people living
nearby.

The Assistant Commissioner of factories under the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi sent a show cause notice to Shriram on 13th December, 1985 to
explain why their licence should not be cancelled under Section 430(3) of
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for violating the mentioned terms
and conditions. After Shriram showed cause, the Assistant Commissioner
directed Shriram to stop using the premises containing the caustic chlorine
plant for any industrial purposes by an order on 24th December, 1985.

However, both the orders by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of

factories dated 7th and 24th December, 1985, respectively, were suspended
in the first order of the Supreme Court.

Legal issues dealt in the case of MC Mehta vs.

Union of India (1986)
The Supreme Court dealt with multiple legal issues in the two judgements
passed respectively on 17th February and 20th December, 1986.

The first judgement examined the scope of public interest litigation in the
area of environmental laws and mostly dealt with:

 Whether the Supreme Court had the authority under Article 32 to

decide Shriram to restart its caustic chlorine plant?
 What are the necessary conditions to be satisfied in order to run an
industrial unit in a heavily populated area?
 The decision of constitution of Environmental Courts in India regionally.
The constitutionally important questions were discussed in detail in the final
judgement. The legal issues addressed therein are as follows:

 Whether the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court under

Article 32 can be extended;
  Whether applications for compensations to victims are maintainable
under the said Article;
 Whether Shriram falls under “other authorities” as mentioned in Article
12;
 Whether the right to life under Article 21 is available against a private
corporation like Shriram;
 If a letter addressed to any individual judge is maintainable as public
interest litigation;
 What is the liability of any hazardous industry in case of an accident?
Whether the concept of strict liability established in the case of Rylands
v. Fletcher (1868) applicable in such a situation? What should be the
amount of compensation in the case of an accident occurring due to a
hazardous industry?
 Whether a new legal principle can be constructed if necessary where
the existing legal principles are not applicable; and
 Lastly, whether the Supreme Court of India is bound to follow the
decisions laid down in foreign case laws.

Contentions raised by the parties in MC Mehta

vs. Union of India (1986)

Arguments by the petitioner

On the basis of the liberty given to him by the Supreme Court, the
petitioner-in-person formed a committee of experts named the “Agarwal
Committee” and inspected the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram. The
Committee found multiple inadequacies in the safety measures and was of
the opinion that the complete elimination of hazards was impossible due to
the location of the plant in a densely populated area. Based on the findings,
the petitioner-in-person submitted before the Court that the caustic chlorine
plant should not be allowed to restart since there would always be a
significant possibility of hazards to the people living nearby even if all the
recommendations made by all the expert committees were properly
implemented by the management of Shriram.

Submission by counsel for the trade unions

The counsel for Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union, the two
trade unions of Shriram submitted that the permanent closure of the plant
would result in the unemployment of about 4,000 workmen.
Statement of Additional Solicitor General
The Additional Solicitor General appeared on behalf of both the
administration of Delhi and the Union of India. Both the Delhi administration
and the Union of India did not withdraw their objections on the issue of
reopening the plant. However, it was submitted that if the Court decided to
permit the reopening after examining the absence of any real hazards to the
local community, the reopening could only be ordered after imposing strict
safety measures to ensure the safety of the employees as well as the people
nearby.

Pleadings of counsel of Shriram

The counsel for Shriram pleaded before the Court to allow Shriram to restart
operations in the caustic chlorine plant since the management of Shriram
had taken all the possible steps and safety measures and implemented all
the recommendations made by both the Manmohan Singh Committee and
the Nilay Choudhary Committee. With all the precautions, there was no or
very little possibility of leakage of chlorine gas. Furthermore, due to the
closing down of the factory, about 4,000 employees would be unemployed
and the Delhi Water Supply Undertaking would face non-availability of
chlorine and a short supply of downstream products used to purify water. It
was also submitted that other plants of Shriram would be opened after
adopting proper maintenance and safety measures.

The counsel also raised a “preliminary objection” before the Court regarding
the dealing of constitutionally significant issues since the leakage occurred
after the filing of the petition. According to him, the petitioner could file an
amendment to the writ petition for compensation. The Court accepted the
fact but did not sustain his objection because the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association had already filed applications for
compensation.

Judgement of the court

The judgement consisted of several important discussions on the points of
law and multiple legal principles, as well as consideration of the arguments.
The Court, rather than merely dealing with legal provisions, applied a
humane touch by considering the fates of the employees. The various
aspects of the judgements are discussed as follows:

Decision on the relocation of the caustic chlorine plant

On the question of whether the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram should be
permitted to be restarted or not, the Court referred to the opinions of the
various expert committees constituted earlier. Though the opinions of the
expert committees were conflicting, all of them unanimously expressed the
view that the risk to the employees and people outside could be minimised
with the adoption of proper safety measures, but it was not possible to fully
eliminate them. For that reason, the “general consensus” of all the
committees was to relocate the plant.

For future reference, the Court directed the government to form a national
policy for the location of such hazardous industries to eliminate risk factors.

The Court also noted that all the expert committees had the unanimous
opinion that considerable negligence in maintenance and operation and
defects in the structure of the plant were present. However, despite showing
initial indifference, since the management of Shriram later implemented all
the recommendations of the three expert committees, the caustic chlorine
plant may be restarted due to the absence of imminent danger to the
employees and the community. The Court also considered the fact that the
factor of unemployment would arise due to the closure of the plant.

Consent order under Water Act and Air Act

The Central Pollution Control Board had raised a question regarding the
discharge of effluents and waste water since they did not properly follow the
standards set by the board to discharge wastes by using appropriate
technologies.

Shriram had to obtain a consent order under the Water (Prevention And
Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974 for discharging effluents from the plant. So,
the Court directed the Central Water Board to grant a temporary consent
order for one month. The Court also asked the Board to collect samples from
discharged effluent to ascertain that the collected samples comply with the
standards mentioned in the consent order. If the standards were found to be
violated, the Board should inform the Court about the violation and might
take any action against Shriram accordingly.

Similarly, the plants of Shriram were situated in the air pollution control area
as notified by the Central Government under Section 19(1) of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Hence, to run the plant,
Shriram had to apply for a consent order under Section 21 of the Act.
Shriram complied with all the conditions mentioned in the consent order
under the Air Act, 1981 at that time. However, the Court gave the Board the
liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against Shriram if the Board
found any violations of the consent order.
Grievance with Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Court expressed certain grievances with the Delhi Municipal Corporation
due to their failure to keep the sewer clean so that it could be used for the
discharge of effluent. The Court noted that no positive steps were taken by
the municipality to clean the choked sewer situated in the Najafgarh area.
Though the Court did not issue any direct order to clean up the sewer, it
regretted the indifference of the Delhi Municipality to clean up the sewer due
to which the process of discharging the effluents was affected.

Final decision
The final decision by the Supreme Court was to give Shriram permission to
reopen the mentioned plant. Though the earlier two orders passed by the
Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of factories dated 7th and 24th
December, 1985 were not vacated, both the orders were suspended. The
Court gave temporary permission to run the plant and set ten conditions to
strictly follow, along with fines. The Court also mentioned that failure to
maintain the conditions would result in the cancellation of the permission
granted by the Court.

Conditions to be followed
The strict conditions set by the Supreme Court for Shriram to restart the
caustic chlorine plant were as follows:

 The Court noted that only after filing the PIL, Shriram was forced to
implement all the recommendations given by the expert committees.
Hence, the Court directed an expert committee to monitor the safety
measures and maintenance once a fortnight twice and then submit a
report before the Court. The Court directed Shriram to pay Rs thirty
thousand as the cost of various expenses of the expert committee.
 The Court directed Shriram to engage one plant operator to supervise
the safety and security measures of the plant. In case of any further
future mishap, the operator would be held responsible personally.
 The Chief Inspector of Factories or any other inspector under his
direction was supposed to pay a surprise visit without prior information
once every week. The duty of the inspector was to inspect whether the
management of the plant was following all the safety measures as
directed by the expert committees.
 In addition to the above, the Court further asked the Central Board to
engage another senior officer to examine whether Shriram was
properly following the waste management rules.
  The Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of Delhi Cloth
Mills Ltd, the company which was the owner of all the units of Shriram,
to submit an undertaking to the Court declaring that in future, they
would be liable for further accidents and should personally pay
compensation to every victim.
 The two trade unions of Shriram, i.e., Lokahit Congress Union and
Karamchari Ekta Union, were asked to form a committee containing
three representatives after nomination from each of the unions to
supervise the safety arrangements of the plant and to inform the
management in case of any negligence. The Court further directed
them to inform the Labour Commissioner if the management ignored
such defaults or wilful negligence. The Court also directed the
management to train the representatives regarding the functioning of
the plant within two weeks.
 A detailed chart in both English and Hindi containing side effects of
chlorine gas in the human body and what to do in case of emergency
leakage should be in every department as well as at the gate of the
premises.
 The employees in the caustic chlorine plant should be educated and
properly trained regarding the functioning of the plant and the steps to
take during leakage. The Court suggested using audio-visual
programmes to educate, and after that, a “refresher course” along with
mock trials should be conducted at least once every six weeks.
 The Court also directed the installation of loudspeakers on the factory
premises to warn local people in case of accidental leakages.
 A proper vigilance by management to ensure that the employees were
also abiding by the safety procedures and conducting regular medical
checkups.

Payment of compensation
The Court directed Shriram to pay a sum of Rs twenty lacs for the payment
of compensation to victims of oleum gas leakage. Besides that, a bank
guarantee of Rs fifteen lacs should be submitted to the Registrar as a
security deposit to be used as funds for compensation claims in case of any
injury or death of any local people or employee due to chlorine gas leakage
within three years. In such a situation, the District Judge of Delhi would
decide the amount of compensation to be paid.

Suggestions and directions of the Supreme Court to

the Government of India
  The Court suggested the Government of India set up a “High Powered
Authority” after consulting with the Central Board to supervise the
functioning of such industries. The Court further requested to formulate
a national policy regarding the location of such industries in places
where there are little or no health hazards to the common public.
 Scientific and technical knowledge is required to determine the legal
cases regarding the environment. In the absence of any independent
machinery, it becomes difficult. Hence, the Court requested the Indian
Government to set up a piece of independent machinery called the
“Ecological Sciences Research Group” consisting of various science and
technology experts to assist the Court in cases relating to
environmental issues.

Setting up of Environmental Courts

After this landmark case, the Supreme Court directed the government to set
up environmental courts regionally to deal with cases regarding various
environmental issues such as pollution, ecological destruction, and other
conflicts with proper attention. The Environmental Court should have one
professional judge and two experts in science and technology from the
“Ecological Sciences Research Group” to assist the judge in adjudicating the
case.

However, either of the parties may appeal the decision of the Environmental
Court to the Supreme Court.

Judicial recognition of the efforts of the petitioner

Though the Court permitted the restarting of the caustic chlorine plant, the
Court deeply appreciated the petitioner MC Mehta for his efforts in bringing
such a serious issue before the Court. For fighting a “valiant battle” to save
the environment and as a token of appreciation, the Court asked Shriram to
pay him a sum of Rs ten thousand as costs.

Discussion of legal principles

The constitutionally significant questions decided by the five-judge bench
gave rise to some new legal principles.

Epistolary jurisdiction
The Court reiterated the rulings of the landmark cases SP Gupta v. Union of
India (1981), People’s Union For Democratic Rights And Others v. Union Of
India & Others (1982) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.
(1984) which discussed the scope and ambit of the Supreme Court under
Article 32. The Supreme Court should decide on a writ petition by giving
appropriate directions and should protect the fundamental rights of the
citizens. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha, it was further decided that
the procedure should not act as an obstruction to justice and broadened
the locus standi and gave rise to epistolary jurisdiction.

Epistolary jurisdiction is different from regular writ jurisdiction, which refers

to the situation when the court acts on the basis of any letter sent by a social
group or any public-spirited individual.

In the present case, the Court also decided that letters addressed to an
individual judge should be taken cognisance of under the epistolary
jurisdiction.

A new principle of liability

Under the rule of strict liability as evolved in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher
(1868), the defendant is liable for any harm or damage caused to the
plaintiff even if it is completely unintentional or without any fault or any
awareness on the part of the defendant.

While deciding the case, the Court did not find the applicability of the rule of
strict liability and evolved a completely new principle of liability called the
rule of absolute liability. According to the rule of absolute liability, if any
individual or any industry is engaged in an inherently dangerous or
hazardous activity and any harm is caused to anyone while carrying out such
activity, the said individual carrying out such activity should be absolutely
liable.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The need for a comprehensive Act dealing with liability, compensation,
powers of officials and cognisance of offences and providing relief to victims
due to hazardous industries arose immediately after the Bhopal tragedy. The
Court also stressed the same in this case. The Public Liability Insurance
Act was later enacted in 1991 to deal with such issues.

Future implications
The new legal principles and the reforms were reflected in the recent case
of In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram
Village, Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh (2020), also known as the
Visakhapatnam gas leak case (2020) or Vizag gas leak case (2020). In this
case, a hazardous gas called styrene leaked from the factories of LG
Polymers, causing the deaths of 12 people and injury to many more, as well
as damaging the environment. The company was held absolutely liable under
the Act and was required to deposit Rs fifty crores with the National Green
Tribunal.