ENVIRONMENTAL LAWCASE COMMENT INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION & OTHES V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.1 SURBHI SONI ROLL NO. 876 SEMESTER VII SECTION A INTRODUCTION: This case deals with the environmental degradation caused by the untreated effluents of the manufacturing process of the ‘H’ Acid. The Bench comprised of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Justice B.N. Kirpal. Justice Reddy wrote the judgment. FACTS OF THE CASE: Bichhri is a small village in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. In 1987 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited [“Respondent No.4”] started producing certain chemicals like Oleum and Single Super Phosphate. Subsequently, Silver Chemicals [“Respondent No. 5”], commenced production of 'H' acid in its plant. This ‘H’ acid was exclusively meant for export purposes. Its manufacture gives rise to enormous quantities of highly toxic effluents - in particular, iron-based and gypsum-based sludge. Jyoti Chemicals [“Respondent No. 8”] is another unit established to produce 'H' acid, besides some other chemicals. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were established to produce fertilizers and a few other products. All the units of Respondent nos. 4-8 are situated in the same complex. The production of ‘H’ acid led to 2400-2500 MT of highly toxic sludge [iron-based sludge and gypsum-based sludge] besides other pollutants. Because the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and were thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances have percolated deep into the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the sub-terrain supply of water. The water in the wells and the streams has turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human consumption. It has become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land. The soil has become polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation. The villagers revolted against this, leading to the imposition of Section 144 Cr. PC by the District Magistrate in the area and the closure of these units. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: Petitioner: 1 AIR1996SC1446. 2 1. 9”] was already in existence close to Bichhri village and has been discharging toxic untreated effluents in an unregulated manner.B.P. 3. The rule laid down in Rylands v. 2. UNION OF INDIA - . therefore. therefore. stop discharge of all untreated effluents by taking necessary measures and defray the total cost required for remedial measures as suggested by NEERI report. has been adopting a hostile attitude towards these respondents from the very beginning. The respondents' units were established before the amendment of Section 25 of the Water Act and. Union of India. Union of India [“Oleum Gas Leak Case”]2 and stated that the principle of absolute liability be applied in the present case. The Reports submitted by the various expert committees that sludge is still lying around within and outside the respondents' complex is untrue and incorrect. Blaming the respondents for the said pollution is incorrect and unjustified. The R. It is their responsibility and obligation to properly store the remaining sludge. Moreover. 2. The respondents are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. There is no sludge and there is no toxic discharge from the Sulphuric Acid Plant.C. Therefore. as the respondents had been carrying an activity that has grave impact on the environment. Hindustan Zinc Limited [“Respondent No. It was also submitted that in this case no compensation was awarded because Shriram (the delinquent company) did not came within the meaning of 'State' in Article 12 so as to be liable to the discipline of Article 21 and to be subjected to a proceeding under 2 [1987]1SCR819. the respondents had no opportunity to test the veracity of the said Reports.C. the Reports submitted by it or obtained by it are suspect. therefore did not require any prior consent for their establishment. The Reports very clearly establish that it is the respondents alone who are responsible for the environmental degradation that has happened in Bichhri village and surrounding areas. [1987]1SCR819. Fletcher is the applicable rule. A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. does not lie against them. The petitioner relied strongly upon the case of M. 5. Mehta v. -CASE COMMENT: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. 4. In light of the same they must be closed down.C. 3 M. 3. Before the respondents came into existence. Respondents: 1. The respondents have continuously violated the laws and lawful orders passed from time to time. The law laid down in Oleum Gas leak Case3 is at variance with the established legal position in other Commonwealth countries. 6. Only the units of the respondents have been picked upon by the Central and Sate authorities while taking no action against the other units. Mehta v. RPCB’s case that the respondents' units do not have the requisite permits/ consents is incorrect. 7. but no report says that respondent 9 is responsible for pollution of Bichhri village. and the aquifers is clearly established by the analysis Report referred to in the Report of the Central Experts’ team. Government of Rajasthan and R. In the present case. The principle that is to be evolved for fixing liability should be simple. 4. to compel them to perform their statutory duties enjoined by the Acts on the ground that their failure to carry out their statutory duties is seriously undermining the right to life [of the residents of Bichhri and the affected area] guaranteed by Article 21. DECISION: The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition. -CASE COMMENT: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. 4. There is no proof of hostility on part of the RPCB. 6. The objection that the respondents were not given an opportunity to crossexamine them. soil. 3. The removal of remaining sludge and/ or the stoppage of discharge of further toxic waters is the absolute responsibility of the respondents. the reports are fully corroborated and affirmed by the Reports of central team of experts and of NEERI. The measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect.C. flouting all safety norms provided by law. The law stated by the Court in Oleum Gas Leak Case is by far the more appropriate one . 9. that does not mean that the Court cannot direct the Central Government to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures from the respondents. practical and suited to the conditions of this country. Thus what was said in the Oleum Gas leak Case was essentially obiter.B. urged at this late stage of proceedings . This petition is confined only to pollution in Bichhri village.after a lapse of several years is wholly unacceptable. the said powers will include giving directions for the removal of sludge. The responsibility of the respondents for causing the pollution in the wells. REASONING FOR THE DECISION: 1.P. The expert reports. the NEERI report. and other reports were made at the instance of the court. 7.9 may be responsible for discharging effluents. Even if it is assumed that the Court cannot award damages against the respondents in these proceedings because the respondents are not ‘State’. 5. and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The RPCB acted because the respondents established and were operating their plants contrary to law. 8. Respondent No.apart from the fact that it is binding upon the court. 2. The Oleum Gas Leak Case is to be applied. The central government has power to do so under 3. The respondents are alone responsible for the environmental degradation in the Bichhri village and surrounding areas. UNION OF INDIA- . Order or directions against the respondents but is directed against the Union of India. for undertaking remedial measures and also the power to impose the cost of remedial measures on the offending industry and utilize the amount so recovered for carrying out remedial measures. The writ petition is not for issuance of appropriate writ.3 Article 32 of the Constitution. the litigation had been deliberately kept alive by filing various interlocutory applications in order to avoid compliance with the judgment. 1997 till the amount is paid or recovered. 3.B. The judgment of the Court had not been permitted to acquire finality till 2011. July 18. it is open to them or any organization on their behalf to institute suits in the appropriate civil court. that chemical industries are treated as a category apart. SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION: Even after fifteen years of this final judgment (given on February 13. -CASE COMMENT: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION V. 1996). Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Dattu H. With respect to the claim for damages for the loss suffered by the villagers. The court applied the Polluter Pays principle. Sections 3 and 5 empower the Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this principle.000 INR (USD 608.385. 4. in the light of the experience gained. The responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. The Central Government shall determine the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures. UNION OF INDIA- . 2. DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT: 1. The R.C. Closure of all the plants and factories of Respondents 4 to 8 located in Bichhri village. 2011.P. directed the applicant-industry to pay Rs. is directed to seal all the factories/ units/plants of the said respondents. 37.628) along with compound interest @ 12% per annum from April 11.L.4 10. The Central Government shall consider whether it would not be appropriate.
Report "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action etc. v. Union of India"