Top 7 landmark Judgments of Environmental Protection Act
Conservation and protection of the environment has been an eminent part of the Indian culture and heritage.The global movement to protect the environment began to show signs of life in the 1980s, at a time when the Supreme Court of India was having an awakening of its own. The Constitution of India has laid down Environmental Protection Act to curb air, water and noise pollution and enhance wise use of the environment. The Environmental Protection act provides a clear set of principles to address environmental issues. Here are some of the Landmark judgments on Environment Protection:
1. Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardhichand - Water pollution case, Ratlam
Some of the residents of Ratlam had filed a complaint before the Sub - Divisional Magistrate alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and a lot of stink has been caused by the nearby slum dwellers. The Sub - Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6 months. Then, the Municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that it doesn’t have proper financial support to comply with the sub divisional magistrate. Further, the respondents argued that water pollution is being caused by a runoff from a nearby alcohol plant resulting in form of malaria.
Judgment: The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Corporation of Ratlam to follow the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam City and take necessary steps to protect the area from pollution due to alcohol plant flowing. The court also said it can raise its demand of financial support from the State Government.
2. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India - Ganga Pollution Case
MC Mehta, a noted Supreme Court Lawyer had filed a writ petition to the Supreme Court to prevent leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste in the river Ganga. He requested the court to stop the disposal of effluents into the river till the time a certain treatment plan has been incorporated to curb water pollution.
Judgment: The court highlighted the importance of certain provisions which protect our environment. Article 48 - A also made sure that the State will take right steps to protect and safeguard wildlife of the country. The court stated the importance of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act) which helps maintain water quality. In the historic judgment of 1987, the court said that “Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers should not be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant should not be allowed to continue its existence.
3. M. C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath & Ors - The diversion of river Beas case
Let’s move to another landmark environment protection act judgment. The Indian Express had published an article reporting that a private company, Span Motels Private Ltd has initiated a project called Span Club. This article came under the notice of Supreme Court. The company owner had the direct link with the family of Kamal Nath, a former Minister of Environment and Forests. When Kamal Nath was minister in 1994, the Span Motels had encroached 27.12 big land which was inclusive of forest land. The motel had used bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas and divert the river’s flow. The river was diverted to save the motel from future floods. The raised issue was whether the construction activity carried by the Motel Company justified
Judgment: But the Supreme Court held that the forest lands which are given on lease to the Motel by the State Government are situated at the bank of river Beas. The area is ecologically fragile and therefore should not be converted into private ownership. Doctrine of Public Trust was applied in this case and held that the properties like river, seashore, forests and the air cannot be used for general public. The Motel was asked to pay compensation and construct a boundary wall with a distance of not more than 4 meters. The Court also restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river and asked HP Pollution Board to keep a check on it.
4. Samit Mehta Vs. Union of India – Marine Pollution case due to ship sinking
An environmentalist – Samit Mehta had filed application regarding the damage caused by the sinking of ship which was carrying fuel oil, coal and diesel. Due to sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of sea causing damage to the marine ecosystem. The tribunal has further held that it is the big negligence on the part of respondent and upholds the principle of ‘polluter pay’ and ‘precautionary principle.’
Judgment: National Green Tribunal held that ship sinking accident has led to the marine pollution. Therefore, environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed. It is one of the biggest compensation ever made by the private entity to Government.
5. Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar - Bokaro River Pollution Case
The petition was filed by the public litigation in the prevention of water pollution of river Bokaro from the discharge of slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board failed to take actions against the company and permitted its operation. The State of Bihar did not take any actions against this, instead granted a lease on the payment of royalty. The issue was whether the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the company.
Judgment: The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is the fundamental right under Article 21. But gradually, the fact came into the picture that before granting the discharge of effluents to the Bokaro river, the Board had analyzed and monitored that the effluents generated did not pollute the river. Therefore, there was no good reason to accept petitioner’s contentions. However, the bench found that effective steps must be taken by the State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
6. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors - Dehradun Valley Litigation
In the activity of quarrying, the Limestone was being extracted by blasting out the hills of Dehradun valley with dynamite. This practice also resulted into the slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides. The lack of vegetation had occurred many landslides which killed villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural land. The mining operators contended that the case should be dismissed and let the administrative authorities should decide as per Environmental laws. But the court rejected this argument and later on a monitoring committee was made.
Judgment: In an application filed by the company, the court held that the mining activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and directed it to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to the monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme Court also held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affect the health and safety of people. Therefore, it should be stopped. It highlighted the need to balance the environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands on the forest resources.
7. Almitra H. Patel & Ors. Vs. Union of India - Municipal garbage disposal case
Mrs. Almitra Patel had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court, whereby the petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the practices of Municipal solid waste or garbage treatment in India. The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over Lakh tones of raw garbage was dumped every day. The Tribunal noted the requirement of converting this waste into a source of power and fuel to benefit society’s benefit. That’s why Tribunal asked all the states and UTs to strictly follow this and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016.
Judgment: A complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands was made after this, including landfills.
FAQs:
Q1. What is Environmental Protection Act in India?
Ans. Environmental Protection Act relates to the protection and improvement of the human environment and prevention of hazards to living creatures, plants and property.
Q2. When was Environmental Protection Act passed?
Ans. The Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1986.
Q3. What are the roles of environmental protection Act 1986?
Ans. The Environmental Protection Act protects and improves the environmental conditions. It allows taking strict actions against all those who harm the environment. The Act introduces the concept of monetary penalty for violations and contraventions.
