The Ganga Pollution Cases

Mehta I [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 463]

 In this petition the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme Court (“the
Court”) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the
time they incorporate certain  treatment plants for treatment of toxic effluents to arrest
water pollution.
 Court directed the issue of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, treating this case as
a representative action by publishing a small gist of the petition in the newspapers
 The Court highlighted the importance certain provisions in our constitutional
framework which enshrine the importance and the need for protecting our environment
 The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974
 Section 24 of the Act prohibits the use of the use of any ‘stream’ for disposal of
polluting matter
 The Ganga Pollution Cases
 One of the functions of the State Board (‘the Board’) is to inspect sewage or trade
effluents, plants for treatment of sewage and trade effluents
 The Central Government is empowered to issue directions in writing to any person or
authority to comply with such directions
 Such directions may include closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or
process or stoppage or regulation supply of electricity or water or any other service.
 no effective steps were taken by the Central Government to prevent the public nuisance
caused by the tanneries at Kanpur
 The Court ordered the tanneries to establish primary treatment plants if not Secondary
treatment plants.
 The Court further held that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as
irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants.
 Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to
exist a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to
continue to be in existence
 The Ganga Pollution Cases
 Mehta II (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India decided on 12th January, 1988
 This petition was taken up by the Court against the municipal bodies, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
in this case
 Nagar Mahapalikas and the Municipal Boards are primarily responsible for the maintenance of
cleanliness in the areas of their jurisdiction.
 The Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to take appropriate action under the provisions of
the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 for the prevention of water pollution in the
river.
 It was noted that a large number of dairies in Kanpur were also polluting the water of the river by
disposing waste in it. The Supreme Court ordered the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to direct the dairies
to either shift to any other place outside the city or dispose waste outside the city area.
 Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika was ordered to increase the size of sewers in the labour colonies and
increase the number of public latrines and urinals for the use of poor people.
 Whenever applications for licenses to establish new industries are made in future, such applications
shall be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing
out of the factories.
 The Ganga Pollution Cases

 It is the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational institutions
throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week lessons relating to the
protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wildlife in the first ten classes.