Environmental law

LEADING CASES ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Submitted to- Submitted by

MS. KOMAL KASHISH BANSAL

271/14

B.Com LL.B (hons) 8th sem

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 1

 Environmental law

Acknowledgement

Any work requires the effort of many people and this is no different. First of all, I would like to
express my heartiest thanks to the Director of University Institute of Legal Studies, Dr. Rattan
Singh for giving me an opportunity to study in such a great institution. Then I thank my teacher
Ms. Komal for firstly making me understand the contents of my topic and then giving me a
wonderful opportunity to present this topic in form of an assignment. His support and teaching
helped me a lot to complete this assignment.

I would also like to thank my friends who were always available to me for help and also helped
me collect data for my project through various sources. They also provided me with material I
needed and made my work as easy as possible.

Regardless of anything, I wish to express my gratitude to those who may have contributed to this
assignment, even though anonymously.

Kashish Bansal

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 2

 Environmental law

Leading cases

1. VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR

1996 SC 2715)

APPELLANT: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums

RESPONDENT: Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Department of Environment and Others

BENCH:

 Justice Kuldip Singh

 Justice Faizan Uddin
 Justice K. Venkataswami

COURT: Supreme Court of India

DECIDED ON: Apr-07-2016

FACTS

This case was recently decided by the Supreme Court of India in the year 2016 and established
the principle of Precautionary approach in environment protection.

The petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum filed a Public Interest Litigation u/a 32 of Indian
Constitution. Petition was filed against the large-scale pollution caused to River Palar due to the
discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The water of River Palar is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding
people. Further, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore found that
nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has become either totally or partially unfit for
cultivation. This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship
between environment and development.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 3

 Environmental law

ISSUE

The question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the tanneries
should be allowed to continue to operate at the cost of lives of lakhs of people?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

It was submitted by petitioner the entire surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been
polluted resulting in non-availability of potable water to the residents of the area. It is stated that
the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu have caused environmental degradation in the area.

An independent survey conducted by Peace Members, a non-governmental organisation,

covering 13 villages of Dindigal and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Unions, reveals that 350 well
out of total of 467 used for drinking and irrigation purposes have been polluted. Women and
children have to walk miles to get drinking water.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Learned counsel for the tanneries raised an objection that the standard regarding total dissolved
solids (TDS) fixed by the Board was not justified. This Court by the order dated April 9, 1996
directed the NEERI to examine this aspect and give its opinion. In its report dated June 11, 1996
NEERI has justified the standards stipulated by the Board.

The Ministry of Environment and forests (MEF) has not categorically laid down standards for
inland surface water discharge for total dissolved solids (TDS), sulphates and chlorides. The
decision on these standards rests with the respective State Pollution Control Boards as per the
requirements based on local site conditions. The standards stipulated by the TNPCB are justified
on the afore referred considerations.

The prescribed standards of the TNPCB for inland surface water discharge can be met for
tannery waste waters cost-effectively through proper implant control measures in tanning
operation, and rationally designed and effectively operated wastewater treatment plants (ETPs &
CETPs).

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 4

 Environmental law

JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 9, 1996 we have heard learned counsel appearing for
the tanneries which have been closed in terms of the above order. It has been brought to our
notice that there are some tanneries which had set up individual pollution control devices, but
despite that they were closed. It has further been brought to our notice that some of the tanneries
are connected with CETP’s and have also set up their individual pollution control devices.
Various other anomalies have been brought to our notice. Be that as it may, we have now to
adopt a uniform procedure to bring these tanneries on rails. We make it clear that no tannery
shall be permitted to re-open unless this Court is satisfies that the necessary pollution
control devices either individually or cumulatively have been set up by these tanneries and for
that purpose we have to depend on the advice tendered by Technical Authorities like the
Pollution Control Boards or NEERI. The Court directed the Central Pollution Control Board and
the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to jointly inspect the area on war-footing. The tanneries
either directly or through learned counsel may approach the Pollution Control Boards or indicate
that their respective units have set up/constructed the necessary pollution Control devices. We
direct the Pollution Control Boards concerned to immediately inspect the Units and file a
report in this respect before May 6, 1996.

The Court further directed that all those Units which are not in a position to construct the
effluent treatment devices within this period may approach the Board as and when they
complete the devices. The North Arcot District and Chengai MGR District Association and other
Associations of the Tanners shall bear the expenses of the inspection teams organized by the
Boards.

 The Supreme Court examining the report delivered its judgment making all efforts to
maintain a harmony between environment and development.
 The Court admitted that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner
and also provides employment to several thousands of people. But at the same time, it
destroys the environment and poses a health hazard to everyone.
 The court delivering its judgment in favor of petitioners directed all the Tanneries to
deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the office of Collector as fine

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 5

 Environmental law

 The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr. M. C. Mehta with a sum
of Rs. 50,000 as appreciation towards his efforts for protection of Environment.
 The Court in this case also emphasized on the constitution of Green Benches in India
dealing specifically with matters relating to environment protection and also for speedy
and expeditious disposal of environmental cases.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In my opinion it is obvious that the Environment Act contains useful provisions for controlling
pollution. I believe that the main purpose of the Act is to create an authority or authorities under
Section 3(3) of the Act with adequate powers to control pollution and protect the environment. It
is a pity that till date no authority has been constituted by the Central Government. The work
which is required to be done by an authority in terms of Section 3(3) read with other provisions
of the Act is being done by this Court and the other Courts in the country. It is high time that
the Central Government realises its responsibility and statutory duty to protect the
degrading environment in the country. If the conditions in the five districts of Tamil Nadu,
where tanneries are operating, are permitted to continue then in the near future all rivers/canals
shall be polluted, underground waters contaminated, agricultural lands turned barren and the
residents of the area exposed to serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct
the Central Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the Environment Act.

The Constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to fresh air, clean water and
pollution free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of
clean environment.

There are more than 900 tanneries operating in the five districts of Tamil Nadu. Some of them
may, by now, have installed the necessary pollution control measures, they have been polluting
the environment for over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. This Court has in
various orders indicated that these tanneries are liable to pay pollution fine. The polluters
must compensate the affected persons and also pay the cost of restoring the damaged ecology.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 6

 Environmental law

2. Animal Welfare Board of India v/s A. Nagaraja & Others

APPELLANT: Animal Welfare Board

RESPONDENT: A. Nagaraja and Others

BENCH:

 Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan

 Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

COURT: Supreme Court of India

DECIDED ON: May-07-2014

FACTS

The present case concerns itself with an issue of seminal importance with regards to the rights of
animals under our constitution in connection with the conduct of Jallikatu bullock cart races etc.
MoEF, as early as on 2.3.1991, issued a notification under Section 22 of PCA Act banning
training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs, which was challenged by
the Indian Circus Organization before the Delhi High Court but, later, a corrigendum was issued,
whereby dogs were excluded from the notification. Later, MoEF issued a fresh notification dated
11.7.2011, specifically including “Bulls” also, so as to ban their exhibition or training as
performing animals, while this Court was seized of the matter.
MoEF has now abruptly taken up the stand that though “Bull” has been included in the list of
animals, not to be exhibited or trained as “performing animal” vide Notification dated
11.07.2011, it has been pointed out that, in order to strike a balance and to safeguard the interest
of all stakeholders, including animals, and keeping in mind the historical, cultural and religious
significance of the event, and with a view to ensure that no unnecessary pain or suffering is
caused to the animals, participants as well as spectators, the Government proposes to exempt
bulls participating in Jallikattu in the State of Tamil Nadu from the purview of the Notification

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 7

 Environmental law

dated 11.07.2011, subject to the guidelines, copy of which has been provided along with the
affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, MoEF.
Further, it has also taken up the stand that the TNRJ Act is repugnant to the provisions of the
PCA Act and the rules made thereunder and State cannot give effect to it in the absence of the
assent of the President under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Further, ABWI also
submits that the Bulls which are forced to participate in the race are subjected to considerable
pain and suffering, which clearly violates Section 3 and Sections 11(1)(a) & (m) of the PCA Act
read with Article 51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence exhibition or
training them as performing animals be completely banned.
Organizers of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races, individually and collectively, took up the stand
that these events take place at the end of harvest season (January and February) and sometimes
during temple festivals which is traditionally and closely associated with village life, especially
in the Southern Districts of the State of Tamil Nadu.
The State of Tamil Nadu has also taken up the stand that every effort shall be made to see that
bulls are not subjected to any cruelty so as to violate the provisions of the PCA Act and the
sporting event can be regulated as per the provisions of the TNRJ Act. Further, it was also
pointed out that the bulls taking part in the Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race etc. are specifically
identified, trained, nourished for the purpose of the said sports event and owners of Bulls spend
considerable money for training, maintenance, and upkeep of the bulls. Further, the State has
also taken up the stand that the Bulls are “performing animals”, and since there is no sale of
tickets in the events conducted, Section 22 will not apply, so also the notification dated
11.7.2011. The state has also taken up the stand that complete ban on such races would not be in
public interest which is being conducted after harvest season and sometimes during temple
festivals as well.
ISSUE
Whether the events that are being conducted in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are in
violation of Sections 3, 11(1)(a)& (m), 21 and 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) and
(h) of the Constitution and the notification dated 11.7.2011?
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS
Shri Raj Panjwani, submitted that the event Jallikattu, even if conducted following the TNJR
Act, would still violate the provisions of PCA Act, especially Section 11(1)(a). Learned senior

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 8

 Environmental law

counsel submitted that Jallikattu, as an event, involves causing the Bull pain and suffering and
cannot be free from cruelty and hence falls within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a). Further, it
was pointed out that, during Jallikattu, the Bulls, it is observed, carry out a flight response,
indicating both fear and pain and suffering. Shri
Panjwani made considerable stress on the words “or otherwise” in Section 11(1)(a) and
submitted that any act which inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal is prohibited
unless it is specifically permitted under any of the provisions of PCA Act or the rules made there
under. Shri Panjwani also submitted that since the event Jallikattu, as such, is an offence under
Section 11(1)(a), through a State Act, it can neither be permitted nor regulated and hence the
State Act is void under Article 245(1) of the Constitution, in the absence of any Presidential
Assent.
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for State of Tamil Nadu, referring to
Section 11(3) of PCA Act, submitted that the Act does not prohibit the infliction of all forms of
pain or suffering on animals and hence Section 11(1)(a) has to be read and understood in that
context. Referring to Sections 11(1)(a), (g), (h), (j), (m) and (n), learned senior counsel submitted
that the expression “unnecessary pain or suffering” is not used in those clauses and hence the
events like Jallikattu, which do not cause that much of pain or suffering on the animal, cannot be
completely prohibited, but could only be regulated.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
Shri Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the organizers, highlighted the historical and
cultural importance of Jallikattu event and submitted that, taking into consideration the nature of
the event, the same would not cause any unnecessary pain or suffering to the Bulls which
participate in that event, so as to violate Section 3 or Section 11(1)(a) of PCA Act. Learned
senior counsel submitted that such events could be regulated under the regulations framed under
TNRJ Act as well as the additional safeguards taken by the State Government and the proposed
guidelines framed by MoEF. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the mere fact that there
has been some violation of the regulations would not mean that the entire event is banned in the
State of Tamil Nadu which, according to the learned senior counsel, will not be in public interest.
Learned senior counsel also referred to the manner in which such events are being conducted
world-over, after taking proper precaution for the safety of the animals used in those events.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 9

 Environmental law

JUDGEMENT
Thus AWBI is right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate
Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the notification dated
11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot be used as performing
animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. Thus the following declarations and directions:
 We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act
read with Articles 51A (g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under
Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.
 We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of
PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union
Territories (in short “Governments”), MoEF and AWBI.
 AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that the personsin-
charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of animals.
 AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of
unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals since their rights have been statutorily
protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
 AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii)scrupulously
followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite
any animal to fight against a human being or another animal.
 AWBI and the Governments would also see that even in cases where Section 11(3) is
involved, the animals were not put to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and
scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same.
 AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in relation to the
human treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating the spirit of
Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.
 Parliament is expected to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective
deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for violation of Section 11,
adequate penalties and punishments should be imposed.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 10

 Environmental law

 Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights,

as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and
honor.
 The Governments would see that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the declaration and
the directions issued by this Court are not properly and effectively complied with,
disciplinary action is taken against the erring officials so that the purpose and object of
PCA Act could be achieved.
 TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation, hence held
constitutionally void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
 AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy steps to implement the provisions of PCA
Act in consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports to the Governments and if
any violation is noticed, the Governments should take steps to remedy the same,
including appropriate follow-up action.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The court’s decision was in fact appropriate. There have been so many instances of death and
damage to property that the move of the Supreme Court has certain aspects good in the eyes of
law. Jallikattu in simple words is a celebration of cruelty. Jallikattu is cruel to animals and also
poses a signicant threat to public safety. In one four-day period in January 2011, 215 people,
including 154 spectators, sustained injuries during Jallikattu events. Two people have even died.
Supporters of the Act assert that regulations lessen mercilessness to animals, yet the regulations
being referred to arrangement basically with the booking of an occasion, setting up blockades
and constraining the quantity of members. Regulations can’t refute the key cold-bloodedness of
Jallikattu, and the Animal Welfare Board of India brings up that even these fundamental
regulations go unenforced and do little to address the misery of bulls. Furthermore, the Act goes
against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibits the misuse of animals.
In spite of the fact that the bulls are not slaughtered they experience the trauma of being pursued
and hopped upon by hordes of men who attempt to cut them down. Also if this isn’t sufficient
the bulls are unsettled by putting lemon juice and bean stew powder at them, being starved
furthermore given liquor. Numerous a period their tails are cut too which irritates them much
more. The bulls are raised exclusively for this occasion. The coordinators challenged that no

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 11

 Environmental law

tickets were sold and thus Jallikattu and the bulls utilized within these celebrations couldn’t be
termed performing animals, however the Court fails to take this aspect into consideration.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 353]

APPELLANT: M.C. Mehta

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.

BENCH:
 Justice Kuldip Singh
 Justice Faizan Uddin
COURT: Supreme Court of India
FACTS
In this case a petition was filed the threat to the deteriorating beauty of Taj Mahal to invoke the
Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water ( Prevention And Control Of
Pollution) Act 1974 and Environmental Protection Act 1986 for the purpose of relocation of 292
factories to prevent emission by coke or coal consuming factories having a damage effect on Taj
living in the Taj trapezium zone, and further to direct them to change into natural gas as
industrial fuel. According to the petitioner the foundaries, chemical/ hazardous industries and the
refinery at Mathura were the major sources to damage to the Taj. The sulphur dioxide emitted by
Mathura refinery and other industries when combined with oxygen with the aid of oxygen in the
atmosphere formed suiphuric acid called acid rain which has a corroding effect on the gleaming
white marble. Industry/Refinery emissions, brick kilns, vehicular traffic and generator set were
all responsible for polluting the amient air around the Taj Trapezium Zone. In this case Four
NEERI Reports, Two Varadharajan Reports and Several Reports by the State Pollutin Control
Board were presented. After examining all the reports and taking into the consideration other
material on the record, the court has no hesitation in holding that the industries in TTZ were
active contributor to the pollution in the said area. Principle applied here are-
 Sustainable development– the object behind this litigation is to stop the pollution while
encouraging the development of the industries because development of industry is
essential for economy but at the same time environment has to be protected.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 12

 Environmental law

 Precautionary principle– the pollution created as a consequence of development so the

state must anticipate, prevent and attack the harm caused to the environment.
 Polluter pays principle– the court interpreted the principle in order to mean that the
absolute liability to harm the environment is not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also for restoring the cost of environmental degradation.
Article referred in this case of Constitution of India are Article 21, 48A, 49.
ISSUES
The Mathura Oil Refinery and other nearby industries pushed into atmosphere pollutants that
contain oxides of sulphur qand nitrogen which causes acid rain. The deposition of SPM on the
Shimmering White Marble Of Taj Mahal imparts yellow tinge to the marble surface and causes
marble cancer. Taj’s discoloration which was caused by equal deposition of dust particles and
carbon particles such as black and brown carbon which is light absorbing organic carbon.
JUDGEMENT
The court on 11thn of April, 1994 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the order
indicating that the industries situated in Agra be relocated out of TTZ. All these decisions were
taken on the basis of reports given by NEERI. The Ministry of Environment was also asked to
examine this aspect and appoint an expert authority (from India or abroad) to undertake the
survey of the Taj Trapezium Environmental Area and make report regarding the source of
pollution in the area and the measures to be adopted to control the same. The Ministry asked an
expert committee under Dr. S. Varadharajan to do the job.
Meanwhile the Indian Oil Corporation also agreed to the use of natural gas as an alternate fuel.
The report said that once natural gas is brought to Mathura there would be no difficulty in
providing the same to the other industries in TTZ and outside TTZ. It was suggested that a 10
inch diameter, 13 km long pipeline could deliver the natural gas to the refinery as well as the
other industries and was scheduled to be completed by December, 1996. The court on 14th of
March, 1996 directed the GAIL, Indian Oil Corporation and the U.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation to indicate the industrial areas outside the TTZ which would be
connected with the gas supply network so the industries which are not in a position to get gas
connections or which are otherwise polluting may have to be relocated outside TTZ.
On 12th of September, 1996, the court passed the orders regarding the safety measures to be
taken during the construction and operation of the gas net-work whreas on the other side The

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 13

 Environmental law

exact number of air polluting industries which were to be shifted was found out. Suggestions
were also taken from the concerned industries. Although the Board had placed on record list of
510 industries which are responsible for air pollution but they confined this order only to 292
industries located and operating in Agra. The industries operating in TTZ which were given gas
connection. The whole purpose is to stop air pollution by banishing coke/coal from TTZ.
The final judgment in this case was given on 30th of December 1996 and the bench consisted
of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Faizan Uddin. The court was of the view that The Taj Mahal
is a masterpiece and has international reputation. It is also an important source of revenue to the
country because of the huge tourist attraction it commanded. So, its beauty could not be
compromised. The following guidelines are:-
 The industries (292 listed) shall approach/apply to the GAIL before February 15, 1997
for grant of industrial gas-connection.
 The industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connections and also the
industries which do not wish to obtain gas connections may approach/apply to the
Corporation UPSIDC)/Government before February 28, 1997 for allotment of alternative
plots in the industrial estates outside TTZ.
 The GAIL shall take final decision in respect of all the applications for grant of gas
connections by March 31, 1997 and communicate the allotment letters to the individual
industries.
 Those industries which neither apply for gas connection nor for alternative industrial plot
shall stop functioning with the aid of coke/coal in the TTZ with effect from April 30,
1997. Supply of coke/coal to these industries shall be stopped.
 The GAIL shall commence supply of gas to the industries by June 30, 1997. As soon as
the gas supply to an industry commences, the supply of coke/coal to the said industry
shall be stopped with immediate effect.
 The Corporation/Government shall finally decide and allot alternative plots, before
March 31, 1997, to the industries which are seeking relocation.
 The relocating industries shall set up their respective units in the new industrial estates
outside TTZ. The relocating industries shall not function and operate in TTZ beyond
December 31, 1997. The closure by December 31, 1997 is unconditional and irrespective
of the fact whether the new unit outside TTZ is completely set up or not.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 14

 Environmental law

 The Deputy Commissioner, Agra and the Superintendent (Police), Agra shall effect the
closure of all the industries on December 31, 1997 which are to be relocated by that date
as directed by court.
 The U.P. State Government/Corporation shall render all assistance to the industries in the
process of relocation. The allotment of plots, construction of factory buildings, etc. and
issuance of any license/permissions, etc., shall be expedited and granted on priority basis.
 In order to facilitate shifting of industries from TTZ, the State Government and all other
authorities shall set up unified single agency consisting of all the departments concerned
to act as a nodal agency to sort out all the problems of such industries. The single window
facility shall be set up by the U.P. State Government within one month. The Registry
shall communicate this direction separately to the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Industries)
and Chairman/Managing director, UPSIDC along with a copy of the judgment, no further
time shall be allowed to set up the single window facility.

4. Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India (1990 AIR1480)

APPELLANT: Charan Lal Sahu etc

RESPONDENT: Union of India and ors.

BENCH:
 Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji
 Justice K.N. Singh
 Justice S. Rangnathan
 Justice A.M. Ahmadi
 Justice K.N. Saikia
COURT: Supreme Court of India
FACTS
Union Carbide (India) Ltd. (UCIL) is a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a
New York Corporation. UCIL was incorporated in India in 1954. 50.99% of its share
holding was with UCC and 22% of the shares were held by Life Insurance Corporation of India

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 15

 Environmental law

and Unit Trust of India. UCIL owned a chemical plant in Bhopal for the manufacture of
pesticides using Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) a highly toxic gas.
On the night between 2nd and 3rd December, 1984, there was a massive escape of lethal gas
from the MIC Storage tank at the Bhopal plant resulting in the tragic death of about 3,000
people. Thousands of people suffered injuries. The environment also got polluted, badly affecting
the flora and the fauna. On behalf of the victims, many suits were filed in various District Courts
in the United States of America. All such suits were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation and were assigned to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York and Judge Keenan was the Presiding Judge throughout. Later, the legal battle
shifted to Indian Courts, as it could not proceed in the U.S. Courts, on the ground of forum non
convenient.
Meanwhile, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) 1985 was passed by the
Government of India with a view to secure that the claims arising out of or connected with the
Bhopal gas leak disaster were dealt with speedily, effectively and equitably. Union of India filed
a suit for damages in the District Court of Bhopal on 5.9.1986. However, there were negotiations
for a settlement; hut ultimately the settlement talks had failed.
ISSUE
The following core issues that came up, were,
a. Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
b. Whether or not the Act was in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice?

 Whether being a joint tort feasor, the Union on India had any locus standi to
compromise on behalf of the victims as it itself had permitted the establishment of
such factories without necessary safeguards?
 Whether or not the victims and their legal heirs were given opportunity to be heard?
 Whether or not, due to conflict on interests, the Central Government was acting as a
judge in its own cause?
c. Whether or not the Central Government is legislatively competent to destroy/ demand the
citizens to surrender their rights in guise of giving aid?

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 16

 Environmental law

JUDGEMENTS
The District Judge ordered interim relief of Rs.350 crores. On appeal, the High Court, on 4.4.88
modified the order of the District Judge and ordered an interim relief of Rs.250 crores.
Aggrieved, the UCC as also the Union of India filed petitions for special leave before this Court.
Leave was granted. By its orders dated 14.2.89 and 15.2.89, this Court, on the basis of a
settlement arrived at between the parties, directed UCC to pay a sum of 470 million U.S.
Dollars to the Union of India in full settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities related to
and arising out of the Bhopal gas disaster.

The Act is constitutionally valid. It proceeds on the hypothesis that until the claims of the victims
are realized or obtained from the delinquents, namely, UCC and UCIL by settlement or by
adjudication and until the proceedings in respect thereof continue, the Central Government
must pay interim compensation or maintenance for the victims. In entering upon the settlement
in view of s. 4 of the Act, regard must be had to the views of the victims and for the purpose of
giving regard to these, appropriate notices before arriving at any settlement, was necessary. In
some cases, however, post-decisional notice might be sufficient but in the facts and the
circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose would be served by giving a post-
decisional hearing having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the order of this Court
dated 4th May, 1989 and having regard to the fact that there are no further additional data and
facts available with the victims which can be profitably and meaningfully presented to
controvert the basis of the settlement and further having regard to the fact that the victims
had their say, or on their behalf their views had been agitated in these proceedings, and will
have further opportunity in the pending review proceedings.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This case has been a unique case in itself where the urgency of the situation and the lack of
legislations and administrative provisions led to the enactment of the Act in haste and this
subsequent case where the Supreme Court “had” to interpret that the situation called for the
exceptions in Administrative Law to apply. The Judges also suggested various ways in which
such future situations could be taken care of. “The Bhopal gas tragedy and the legal response
thereto have been the subject of great controversy. A review petition against the above settlement
award was filed before the Supreme Court in the Union Carbide Corpn. Vs India. Objections

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 17

 Environmental law

were taken to the competence of the Supreme Court to withdraw criminal prosecutions and pass
such an order in the course of the hearing of appeals arising out of the interlocutory orders in the
suit. The Court, however, set aside the order quashing criminal prosecutions and imposing an
embargo on future prosecutions

5. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP(1987 sc 1037)

APPELLANT: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
BENCH:
 Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati
 Justice Misra Rangnath
COURT: Supreme Court of India
FACTS
A letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun was treated as a
Writ Petition and notices issued. The main allegations therein related to unauthorized and illegal
mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around adversely affecting the
ecology of the area and leading to environmental disturbances. In July, 1983 this Court directed
all fresh quarrying to be stopped.
On 11.8.1983 this Court appointed Bhargav Committee for inspecting all the mines except those
belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India for determining whether the safety
standards laid down in the Mines Act 1952 and the Mines Rules were being observed or not and
whether there was any danger of landslides or was any hazard to individuals, cattle or
agricultural lands by carrying on of mining operations. Blasting operations in the area were also
directed to be stopped. On the basis of the main report of the said Committee this Court on
August 24, 1983 permitted removal of limestone already quarried. The Committee directed
closure of some of the mines and reported the defects appearing in other mines and called upon
the mine owners to carry out rectifications.
The Bhargav Committee classified the mines in A, B and C groups. So far as the mines in Group
C were concerned, the Committee recommended that they should he closed down. As regards the
mines in Group A, the Committee opined that the quarrying could he carried on without any
environmental or ecological hazard. The Committee also recommended closure of B Group

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 18

 Environmental law

mines permanently. The Union Government had also appointed a Working Group on mining of
limestone quarries in Dehradun and Mussoorie area some time in 1983 which was also headed
by Shri Bhargav who was heading the Committee appointed by this Court. The Working Group
submitted its report in September, 1983. After a comparative analysis of the two reports, the
Court found that the Working Group had taken these very mines for their study and had divided
the mines into two categories, namely, Class I and Class II. All the mines then categorized as
Class I were now included by the Bhargav Committee in Group A and the remaining mines now
classified as Group B and C were in Class II.

This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee headed by Professor Valdia to consider the
problems of ecology and environment with reference to mining. Professor Valdia gave a separate
report while the other two members gave a join report. This Court also directed closing down of
the mines in A Category located within the municipal limits of Mussoorie.
JUDGEMENTS
On a perusal of order dated 12th March, 1985 the other members of the Bench are inclined to
agree with the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen that the said order covered almost all
the relevant aspects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter. The question whether
the schemes submitted by the mine lessees to Bandopadhyay Committee have been rightly
rejected or not and whether under those schemes, the mine lessees can be allowed to carry on
mining operations without in any way adversely affecting environment or ecological balance or
causing hazard to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands still remain to be considered and would
have to be decided in the light of the view taken by this Court in the order dated 12th March,
1985 and the instant judgment.

Preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which
not only Governments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and every
Indian citizen is reminded that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51 A(g) of the
Constitution. Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin. Scientific
development has made it possible and convenient for man to approach the places which are
beyond his ken. The consequences of such interference with ecology and environment have now
come to be realized.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 19

 Environmental law

It is for the Government and the Nation-and not for the Court--to decide whether the deposits
should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the industrial
requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control
and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilization and that
would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice,
Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same.

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 20

 Environmental law

Bibliography
WEBLIOGRAPHY

 http://www.legalservicesindia.com
 http://www.scconline.com/WebEdition.aspx
 http://www.indiankanoon.org
 http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com

Leading Cases on Environment Law Page 21