M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA
FACTS OF THE CASE
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others is the first river pollution case to emerge in environmental public interest litigation. In 1985, Mehta filed a writ petition charging that, despite the advances made in the legal code, government authorities had not taken effective steps to prevent environmental pollution of the river Ganga. Using the judicial remedy of mandamus, he called upon state agencies to prevent leather tanneries and the municipal corporation of Kanpur from disposing of industrial and domestic effluent in the river. Justice Kuldip Singh expanded this petition to include all large cities in the Ganga basin. In some law reports, this is called the “Ganga Pollution Case.In this petition the petitioner requested the Supreme 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. Mehta requested the court to order the leather tanneries of the district of Kanpur to stop discharging their untreated effluent into the river. He also claimed that the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur was not undertaking treatment of domestic sewage.
SUBJECT MATTER
All human beings for obvious reasons depend on the environment to survive. A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights including rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation. Without which it is technically impossible for humans to survive. Therefore, human rights also include a right to healthy environment. This relationship is increasingly recognised, as the right to a healthy environment is enshrined in over 100 constitutions. Despite this, at least three people a week are killed protecting our environmental rights- while many more are harassed, intimidated, criminalised and forced from their lands.
LAWS INVOLVED
- Article 52A (g) on the Constitution of India
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
JUDGEMENT
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. At the preliminary hearing the Court directed the issue of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, The Court highlighted the importance certain provisions in our constitutional framework which enshrine the importance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life.
The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (‘the Water Act’). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. Section 24 of the Act prohibits the use of the use of any ‘stream’ for disposal of polluting matter. A ‘stream’ under section 2(j) of the Act includes river, The Act permits the establishment of Central Boards and State Boards. Section 16 and Section 17 of the Act describe the power of these boards. One of the functions of the State Board is to inspect sewage or trade effluents, plants for treatment of sewage and trade effluents.
CONCLUSION
India has a prominent environmental heritage which can be attributable to its biodiversity. The ganga pollution case is very important case and first of its own kind where supreme court cleared that development cannot be done on the value of environment. Then also the judgement seemed to be failed as the river Ganga is still polluted.
Although there were several schemes campaigns by the government like Namami Gange cleanup campaign – the Ganga River Basin Management Plan and the National Mission for Clean Ganga all of them so far proved equally ineffective. If take whole schemes and plans we can conclude that the biggest obstacle for the Ganga cleanup is not the money, tools, or practices, though these are very significant. Instead, it is whether India as a whole is ready to take stand and has the national spirit and the capacity to use these decades of focused investment and management to ensure that by mid-century Indians can swim, fish, and drink safely from the mother river. So, it requires we the people included in it the it would no longer to achieve this.
Eduindex News 