COMPENDIUM OF SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED CASES

INDIA

India - Air Pollution, Water Pollution

CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI v. STATE OF U.P. and others

AIR 1990 SC 2060
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C. J. and K.N.SAIKIA, J.

Introduction

A letter written to the Court was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The letter written by Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sanghartsh Samiti, alleged environmental pollution in the Sarnath area. It was also alleged therein that the Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and refinery plant are located in the green belt area, touching three villages and the Sarnath temple of international fame. The smoke and dust emitted from the chimneys of the mills and the effluents discharged from these plants were alleged to be causing environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and were proving a serious health hazard. It was alleged that people were finding it difficult to eat and sleep. The Petitioners sought directions from the Court.

Legislative Framework

Constitution of India-Articles 21 and 32.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 6 of 1974.
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act of No.6 of 1974-Sec. 21

Held

Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court declared that prima facie the provisions of the relevant Act, namely the Air Pollution Control Act have been complied with and there is no conduct, which is attributable to the owners leading to pollution of air or creating ecological imbalances requiring interference by the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that "Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Art. 21 of the Constitution. Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to recourse in recourse of Art. 32 of the Constitution. But this can only be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community. This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and caution. Where it appears that this is only a cloak to "feed fact ancient grudge" and enmity, this should not only be refused but strongly discouraged. While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that this weapon under Art. 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court. That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental rights."

Cases Cited

1988 1 SCR279:
AIR 1988 SC 1037
AIR 1988 SC 1037
AIR 1984 SC 802