Pollution of the Ganges (or Ganga), the largest river in India, poses
significant threats to human health and the larger environment. Severely
polluted with human waste and industrial contaminants, the river provides water
to about 40% of India's population across 11 states, serving an estimated
population of 500 million people which is more than any other river in the
world.
Today, the Ganges is considered to be the sixth-most polluted river in the
world. Raghubir Singh, an Indian photographer, has noted that no one in India
spoke of the Ganges as polluted until the late 1970s. However, pollution has
been an old and continuous process in the river as by the time people were
finally speaking of the Ganges as polluted, stretches of over six hundred
kilometres were essentially ecologically dead zones.
A number of initiatives have been undertaken to clean the river but failed to
deliver as desired results. After getting elected, India's Prime minister Narendra
Modi affirmed to work in cleaning the river and controlling
pollution. Subsequently, the Namami Gange project was announced by the
government in the July 2014 budget.[10] An estimated Rs 2,958 Crores (US$460
million) have been spent until July 2016 in various efforts in cleaning up of
the river.
Background of the case
Ganga is a trans-boundary river of Asia flowing through India and Bangladesh. It
is one of the most sacred rivers to the Hindus and a lifeline to a billion
Indians who live along its course. One of the most populated cities along its
course is Kanpur. This city has a population of approx. 29.2 lakhs (2.9
million). At this juncture of its course Ganga receives large amounts of toxic
waste from the city´s domestic and industrial sectors, particularly the leather
tanneries of Kanpur.
In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent
these leather tanneries from disposing off domestic and industrial waste and
effluents in the Ganga river. This writ petition was bifurcated by the Supreme
Court into two parts known as Mehta I and Mehta II.
Mehta I [M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 463]:
Proceedings and Orders passed before final judgment:
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, treating this case as a representative action by publishing a
small gist of the petition in the newspapers calling upon all the
industrialists, municipal corporations and the town municipal councils having
jurisdiction over the areas through which the river Ganga flows to appear before
the Court and to show cause as to why directions should not be issued to them.
In pursuance of this notice many industries and local authorities appeared
before the Supreme Court.
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, water
course whether flowing or for the time being dry, inland water whether natural
or artificial, sub-terrene waters, sea or tidal waters to such extent or as the
case may be to such point as the State Government may by the notification in the
official gazette may specify. 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 (the Board) is to inspect sewage or
trade effluents, plants for treatment of sewage and trade effluents, data
relating to such plants for the treatment of water and system for the disposal
of sewage or trade effluent.
The Court also relied on Section 251, 388, 396, 398, 405 and 407 of the
Adhiniyam which provide provisions for disposal of sewage, prohibition of
cultivation, use of manure, or irrigation injurious to health, power to require
owners to clear away noxious vegetation and power of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
to inspect any place at any time for the purpose of preventing spread of
dangerous diseases. These provisions deal with the duties of the Nagar
Mahapalika or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari appointed under the Adhiniyam with
regard to the disposal of sewage and protection of the environment.
These provisions governing the local bodies indicate that the Nagar Mahapalikas
and the Municipal Boards are primarily responsible for the maintenance of
cleanliness in the areas of their jurisdiction. The Court also relied on the
provisions of the Water Act which provide the meaning of pollution, sewage
effluent, stream and trade effluents.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Water Act provide for the establishment of the Central
and State Boards. A State Board was constituted under Section 4 of the Water Act
in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Section 16 of the Water Act sets out the functions of the Central Board and
Section 17 of the Water Act lays down the functions of the State Board. The
functions of the Central Board are primarily advisory and supervisory in
character. The Central Board is also required to advise the Central Government
on any matter concerning the prevention and control of water pollution and to
co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards.
The Central Board is also required to provide technical assistance and guidance
to the State Boards, carry out and sponsor investigations and research relating
to problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water
pollution. The functions of the State Board are more comprehensive. In addition
to advising the State Government on any matter concerning the prevention,
control or abatement of water pollution, the State Board is required among other
things:
Sections 20, 21 and 23 of the Water Act confer power on the State Board to
obtain information necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the
Water Act, to take samples of effluents and to analyze them and to follow the
procedure prescribed in connection therewith and the power of entry and
inspection for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Water Act.
Section 24 of the Water Act prohibits the use of stream or well for disposal of
polluting matters etc. contrary to the provisions incorporated in that section.
Section 32 of the Water Act confers the power on the State Board to take certain
emergency measures in case of pollution of stream or well. Where it is
apprehended by a Board that the water in any stream or well is likely to be
polluted by reason of the disposal of any matter therein or of any likely
disposal of any matter therein, or otherwise, the Board may under Section 33 of
the Water Act make an application to a court not inferior to that of a
Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, for restraining the
person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.
The Court relied on a common law principle which states that Municipal
Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a
riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a
river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently
treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river.
In the case of Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British
Celanese Ltd[3], the Derby Corporation admitted that it had polluted the
plaintiffs fishery by discharging into it insufficiently treated sewage.
According to the Derby Corporation Act, 1901 it was under a duty to provide a
sewerage system, and that the system which had accordingly been provided had
become inadequate solely from the increase in the population of Derby.
The Court noted that M.C. Mehta is not a riparian owner. Nevertheless he
is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of the
water flowing in the river Ganga. Therefore, his right to maintain the petition
cannot be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga was
held to be a public nuisance.
Final judgment:
The above orders were made applicable to all Nagar Mahapalikas and
Municipalities which have jurisdiction over the area through which the Ganga
river flows.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court further relied on Article 52A (g) on the
Constitution of India, which imposes a fundamental duty of protecting and
improving the natural environment. The Court order that:
Training of teachers who teach this subject by the introduction of short term
courses for such training shall also be considered. This should be done
throughout India.
Written By:- Navnit Kumari
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments