Judiciary on Pollution Control in India
Written by Sanjeev Kumar
For a long time since the enactment of the Water Act of I974 industries have been disregarding the directions of pollution control boards and violating the conditions of consent with impunity Supreme Court was forthright in disapproving the lethargy of boards in taking coercive action against violators of the law. The limits and extent of the prosecuting power were the issue in UP Pollution Control Board v. M/s Modi Distillery. The case raised questions about the efficiency of criminal sanctions against pollution offences and sought more commitment on the part of the pollution control agencies in initiating prosecution. The respondents an industrial unit of a company Modi Industries Limited were being prosecuted for discharging noxious trade effluents without the consent of the state board. The company as such was not impleaded. In an application filed under s. 482 of the CrPC. the High Court held that this lapse was detrimental to the validity of the process against the Managing Director.
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Directors of the company who were in the array of parties. Saying that such technical flaws could have been corrected by an amendment of the complaint the Supreme Court held that the office bearers of a company are deemed to be guilty of the offences committed by the company. The Court found it regrettable that due to the sheer negligence of the board and its legal advisors large business houses were allowed to escape with impunity the consequence of breaches of the provision of law committed by them. Rapid industrialization and urbanization and the accompanying rural exodus to urban areas have had their evil consequences.
Cities like Delhi have turned into dual dustbins with garbage strewn all over. In Wadehra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued several directions to the government and other pollution control agencies particularly the municipal authorities in Delhi who were found to be remiss in performing their statutory duties of collecting and disposing of garbage and waste. Significantly the Court took the view that the government should construct and install incinerators in all hospitals and nursing homes with 50 beds and above. Efficiency in the disposal of hospital wastes is a matter that requires urgent attention because it is ironic that hospitals meant for treating and curing diseases become sources for generating and spreading diseases by exposure to dangerous bio-medical waste.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India popularly called as Second Ganga Pollution Case. Supreme Court issued guidelines to the Kanpur Municipality to tackle about the tanneries around the River Ganges. In this case, the facts are like this. The sewerage system in Kanpur was in complete disarray. Therefore the level of pollution of the river Ganga at Kanpur was higher. Water became unfit for drinking fishing or bathing. The Supreme Court fixed the responsibility on the Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur and asked it to improve its sewerage system within six months with better interaction with the state board. General directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case are notable. High Courts were asked not to grant stay to proceedings to prosecute industrialists and other persons who pollute the water in the river Ganga.
In extraordinary circumstances, the High Court should dispose of such cases within two months from the date of institution. These directions were particularly significant as the court said that they applied mutatis mutandis to all other nagarapalikas and municipalities which had jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows. Although the observations and directions were related to the pollution of the river Ganga had the force of law in relation to similar cases of pollution throughout the country. They pointed to the need for quick prosecution of criminal proceedings against industrialist officials and other persons responsible for pollution.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, Public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum and was directed against the pollution that was being caused by the enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was stated that the tanneries were discharging untreated
effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was finally discharged in river Palar which is the main source of water supply to the residents of the area.
According to the petitioner, the entire surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been polluted resulting in the non-availability of potable water to the residents of the area. It was stated that the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu have caused environmental degradation in the area. According to the preliminary survey made by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre Vellore nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the Tanneries Belt, has become either partially or totally unfit for cultivation. It was further stated in the petition that the tanneries use about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome tanning processes. The said chemicals include sodium chloride, lime sodium sulphate, chloride sulphate, fat liquor Ammonia and Sulphuric acid besides dyes which are used in large quantities, nearly litres of water is used for processing one kilogram of finished leather, resulting in dangerously enormous quantities of toxic effluents have spoiled the physicochemical properties of the soil, and have contaminated groundwater by percolation.
According to the petitioner an independent survey conducted by Peace Members, a Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Union, reveals that wells out of a total of Women and children have to walk miles to get drinking water. Legal Aid and Advice Board of Tamil Nadu requested indicating the extent of pollution caused by the tanneries. It was held that the Board has the power under the Environment Act and the
rules to lay down standards for emissions or discharge of environmental pollutants.
Rule 3 (2) of the Rules even permits the Board to specify more stringent standards for those provided under the Rules. The NEERI has justified the standards stipulated by the Board, this Court directs that these standards are to be maintained by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary to deal with the situation created by the tanneries and other polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The apex Court has issued comprehensive directions for achieving the end result in this case. The Madras High Court would be in a better position to monitor these matters hereinafter. The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to constitute a Special Bench. ―Green Bench‖ to deal with this case and other environmental matters. This Court make it clear that it should be open to the Bench to pass any appropriate order/orders keeping in view the directors issued by Supreme Court.
Keywords: Judiciary on Pollution Control, Judiciary on Pollution Control in India, Judiciary on Pollution Control
