Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.

Union of India,
1996

 suffering of individuals of village Bichhri in Udaipur District of Rajasthan

 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited (HACL) (Respondent No. 4) started manufacturing
certain chemicals like Oleum (concentrated form of Sulphuric Acid) and Single Super
Phosphate
 Silver Chemicals (Re-5) and Jyoti chemicals (Re- 8) were engaged within the production
of ‘H’ acid
 banned in the western countries
 toxic wastewater and sludge was thrown in an open field area of the village
 toxic substances percolated deep into 350 hectares of agricultural land, various tube wells
and alternative water resources
 caused disease, death and disaster in the village and near areas
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India, 1996
 Court asked the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to survey
the village and near areas
 The court for the first time applied the principle of Polluter Pays
 the polluter must not only compensate the victims of the pollution, but also pay the prices
and expenses of restoring the environmental degradation
 once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous the Polluter Pays
Principle imposes absolute liability in such cases
 The Court ordered the closure of all the plants and factories of Re-4 to Re-8 located in the
Bichhri Village and directly RSPCB to seal all the factories, plants, machinery of the said
respondents.
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420

 PIL for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the
discharge of sludge/slurry from the washeries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
 Petitioner contended that the surplus waste discharged in the form of
sludge/slurry as effluent from washeries in the river, leaves the carboniferous
product on the soil, which affects the fertility of the land.
 water flowing to distant places is neither fit for drinking nor for irrigation
purposes
 after making continuous requests no actions have been taken by the State of Bihar
 pleaded immediate steps for curbing pollution in the Bokaro river from the
discharge of sludge from Tata Iron and Steel & Co.
 Arguments on behalf of Respondents
 Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents
from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act, 1974
 Before granting the discharge of the effluents to the Bokaro River, the Board has analyzed
and monitored that the effluents generated from the washeries did not pollute the river
 four ponds were constructed to increase the storing capacity of the effluents
 no discharge of the effluent was found in the Bokaro River and there was no question of
pollution of the river and hence the fertility of the land was also not affected
 the slurry settled in the pond was considered for sale as the carboniferous materials found
in the slurry are very important and valuable for the purpose of fuel
 slurry has a high market value the company cannot afford to let it go waste in the river
Judgment

  the present petition was not filed keeping in view the public interest rather it is filed for
self-interest
 petitioner has been purchasing slurry from Respondents for the last several years, he
wanted more slurry with the passage of time but the respondent company denied accepting
his request
 Petitioner was an influential businessman and has obtained a license for coal trading, he
tried to put pressure on the Respondents to supply him with more quantity of slurry
 A person cannot invoke Public Interest Litigation to satisfy his personal grudge
 The Court directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Respondents
BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy

 night of 2–3 December 1984

 World’s worst industrial disaster
 Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) pesticide factory
 methyl isocyanate (MIC)
 official immediate death toll was 2,600
 Within a fortnight death toll was 8,000
 Over the next 25 years estimates indicate 20,000 death
 6,00,000 suffered irreparable physical damage
 Damaged reproductive systems, lung problems and vision impairments
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy
 Water seeped into a tank containing over 40 tonnes of highly poisonous methyl isocyanate
(MIC)
 Exothermic reaction
 Bhopal transformed into a gas chamber
 No warning given to the residents
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy
 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985
 The Bhopal Act gave the Central government the exclusive right to
represent and act (in India or overseas) on the behalf of the persons
entitled to make claims in relation to the Bhopal gas leak
 ‘parens patriae’
 UCIL Share holding
UCC- 51%
LIC and UTI- 22%
Indian Public- 27%
 Legal Proceedings
 Southern District Court of New York, USA
 Central Government filed a complaint against UCC
 144 proceedings were already under way in federal courts across the United
States
 All proceedings were consolidated and assigned to the court of Judge John
Keenan
 Argued inability of the Indian Courts to deal effectively with the situation and
that the matter should be dealt with in US courts
 UCC, however, pushed for the matter to be dealt with in Indian Courts
 Argument of Indian Government
 India’s legal system was ill-equipped to handle the complex
litigation that the case would entail
 The endemic delays in India’s legal system and the substantial
backlog of cases would impede the effective disposal of the case
 Indian lawyers could not provide proper representation due to a lack
of expertise in the area of tort claims
 Tort law in India was not developed enough to deal with a case of
such gigantic proportions
 Procedural law in India would hinder the path of justice for the
victims
 U.S Court’s Decision
 dismissed the claim on the ground of forum non conveniens
 court can refuse jurisdiction over a case where a more
appropriate/convenient forum is available
 most of the documentary evidence concerning the plant’s design,
safety and setup was in India
 as were the vast majority of witnesses who had to be examined
 The Union of India is a world power in 1986, and its courts have the
proven capacity to mete out fair and equal justice
 UCC would have to consent to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian
courts
 UCC would have to abide by any judgement rendered by an Indian
court as long as it complied with ‘minimal’ due process
 Bhopal District Court’s Judgement
 Indian Government sued UCC for US $3 Billion (Rs.3900 Cr.)
 UCC Defence- UCIL is an autonomous Indian Corp. entity or
UCC’s role was deliberately reduced by India’s sovereign functions
of regulation
 Interim Compensation of Rs. 350 Cr.
 Court invoked the Sec. 151 CPC for compensation
 Carbide filed a revision application
 High Court’s Judgement
 HC did not approve the use of inherent power
 Compensation could be given under Sec. 9 of CPC as well as under common law
evolved and recognised by Indian Courts
 Under English rules, interim relief is granted in personal injury cases if a prima
facie case is made out
 Here, more than prima facie case has been made out against the carbide
 Court Observed- principle of absolute principle laid down in MC Mehta’s case
applied more vigorously to the Bhopal suit
 HC reduced the interim relief granted by Dist. Court to Rs. 250 cr
 Supreme Court Judgement (The Bhopal settlement)

 Both UCC and the Indian Government appealed against the HC judgement
 UCC claimed it amounted to verdict without trial
 Indian Government appealed because the interim compensation amount was
reduced by 30 percent
 SC secured a compromise between UCC and Govt. of India
 UCC agreed to pay US $ 470 million in full and final settlement for all past,
present and future claims arising from the Bhopal Disaster
Criminal Liability of Carbide Officials
 #UCC v. UOI AIR1992 SC 248
 SC reinstated criminal charges for ‘homicide not amounting to murder’ while
upholding the rest of the settlement
 Against Top Executive at Union Carbide
 CBI prepared the documents necessary to extradite Anderson
Criminal Liability of Carbide Officials
 # Kesub Mahindra v. State of MP (1996) 6 SCC 129
 The charges against 9 Indian accused were reduced to one of rash
and negligent act under section 304 A from an offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder
 Trial of the criminal case against 3 foreign accused were separated
and split up as they were absconding
 Seven former employees of UCIL all Indian Nationals in their 70’s
were convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prisons and fined Rs.1
lakh
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union Of India, 1990 AIR 1480
 Constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of claims) Act,
1985
 The Act is Arbitrary and violates the Principles of Natural Justice
 Union of India, being a joint tort-feasor has no locus standi to compromise on
behalf of the victims
 victims and their legal heirs were not given the opportunity of being heard, before
the Act was passed
 The Act in question has been passed in recognition of the right of the sovereign to
act as parens patriae
 Expression of sovereign power
 salus populi suprema lex -regard for public welfare is the highest law
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union Of India, 1990 AIR 1480
 Though settlement without notice is not quite proper but keeping the settlement in
abeyance and giving notice to the victims for a post-decisional hearing would not
be in the ultimate interest of justice
  "To do a great right" after all, it is permissible sometimes "to do a little wrong"
 The Act is constitutionally valid
 emphasise the need for laying down certain norms and standards that the
Government may follow before granting permission or licences 
 need to constitute a statutory "Industrial Disaster Fund"
 Writs in Environmental Matters
 A writ petition can be filed to the SC under Article 32 and the HC under Article
226
 Right to a wholesome environment has been recognised as an fundamental right,
the writ petitions are often resorted to in environment cases
 Generally, the writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition are used in
environmental matters
 Advantages- Speed, Simplicity and Cheaper
 The power to issue writs has been borrowed in India from England (prerogative
writs)
 The writ power of SC and HC wider than the prerogative writs derived from
English law
 power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari
 Mandamus
 To command action by a public authority when an authority is
vested with power and wrongfully refuse to exercise it
 Also to undo what has been done in contravention of a statute
 Against an administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial authority
 Applicant must show-
 Duty sought to be enforced is a duty of public nature
 Duty is mandatory and not discretionary
 Petitioner had demanded justice and the concerned authority had
refused the demand
Rampal vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 Raj 121

 Petitioners - Residents of Bhilwara District of Rajasthan

 complained of the lack of drainage facilities
 water of domestic use, including dirty water from the houses of the Mohalla, rain
water has collected in the chowk 
 no drain for the discharge of the accumulated water
 growth of moss and insects and there is possibility of spread of epidemics
 petitioners filed a writ of Mandamus
 The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 - primary duty of the Board is to keep the
city clean, removing filth, rubbish or other noxious and offensive matter and
constructing drains, sewers, drainage works etc.
 The Court allowed the writ petition by awarding suitable order and direction to
the Municipal Board to clean up the city and for maintaining proper drainage
system.
 Certiorari and Prohibition
 Designed to restrain public authorities from acting in excess of their authority
 Certiorari- an order to an inferior court or quasi judicial body to transmit the record of
pending proceedings to the superior court for its review
 Prohibition- prevents a lower court or tribunal from assuming a jurisdiction which it
does not possess
 Certiorari and Prohibition are now regarded as general remedies against an improper
exercise of power by administrative as well as quasi judicial authorities
 The writs of certiorari and prohibition are issued when an authority
 acts in excess of jurisdiction
 acts in violation of the rules of natural justice
 acts under a law which is unconstitutional
 commits an error apparent on the face of the record
 reaches factual findings that are not supported by the evidence
 Certiorari and Prohibition
 Fundamental Distinction between certiorari and prohibition
 Issued at different stages of the proceedings
 Prohibition is issued when the matter is pending before an authority. It prohibits
the concerned authority from proceeding any further with the matter
 Certiorari is issued only after the concerned authority has decided the question
before it
 a writ of certiorari will lie against a municipal authority that consider a builder’s
applications and permits construction contrary to development rules