New types of pollution
Sec 2(b) of env. Protection Act, 1986 “pollutants”
1. marine pollution
introduction by man, directly or indirectly polluting marine environment.
Causes :-
a. Plastic pollution
b. Oil spills
c. Chemical substances
d. Deep sea floor mining
e. Land run offs
f. Recreational activities
g. Sewage dumping
Caselaws
# MC Mehta v. UOI (Kanpur tanneries cases) 1988
1. Issue
● The primary issue in this case is:
What measures should be taken to address the pollution of the Ganga
River caused by industries, municipalities, and other contributors in and
around Kanpur?
2. Rule
● Relevant laws cited in the case include:
○ The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
○ The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
○ Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959.
● These laws mandate municipalities, industries, and the state
government to maintain environmental hygiene, prevent water
pollution, and ensure proper treatment of sewage and industrial
effluents.
3. Application
● The Court identified significant contributors to pollution, such as
untreated sewage, industrial effluents, and waste from dairies. It
observed that:
○ Municipalities like Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika failed to fulfill their
statutory duties to maintain a clean environment and prevent
pollution.
○ Industries, particularly tanneries, discharged untreated effluents
into the Ganga.
● The Court ordered:
○ Immediate steps to construct sewage treatment plants.
○ Measures to address industrial pollution, including the
requirement for industries to install effluent treatment systems.
○ Relocation or management of dairies contributing waste.
○ Educating the public and students about environmental
protection.
4. Conclusion
● The Supreme Court concluded that Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and other
municipal authorities had a fundamental duty to ensure the prevention
of pollution in the Ganga. It directed strict compliance with
environmental laws and set deadlines for implementing pollution control
measures. It also emphasized the importance of public awareness and
education in preserving environmental resources.
# Indian council for environment legal action v. UOI 1996
1. Issue
● Primary Issue:
Whether the respondents (Hindustan Agro Chemicals and other entities)
are liable for the environmental degradation caused by the production
of hazardous chemicals (e.g., H-acid) in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, and
what remedial measures should be adopted to address the pollution.
● Subsidiary Issues:
a. Can the "Polluter Pays Principle" and "Absolute Liability" doctrine be
applied to the respondents?
b. Whether the statutory authorities failed to fulfill their duties under
environmental laws?
c. What compensation and cleanup measures are appropriate for the
environmental damage?
2. Rule
● Relevant Constitutional Provisions:
○ Article 21: Right to life, which includes the right to a clean and
healthy environment.
○ Article 48A: Directive Principle requiring the State to protect and
improve the environment.
○ Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty of citizens to protect and
improve the environment.
● Key Environmental Laws:
○ Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Empowers the Central
Government to take measures to prevent environmental
pollution.
○ Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Prohibits
the discharge of untreated trade effluents into water bodies.
○ Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Regulates air
pollution.
○ Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989:
Mandates proper treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste.
● Legal Doctrines:
○ Polluter Pays Principle: Polluters are financially responsible for
the damage they cause.
○ Absolute Liability Doctrine: Industries engaged in inherently
hazardous activities are strictly liable for harm caused by accidents
or mishandling of their operations.
3. Application
Factual Matrix:
● Background:
○ The case arises from industrial activities in Bichhri village, Udaipur,
where Hindustan Agro Chemicals and its sister concerns
manufactured H-acid, a chemical banned in many Western
countries due to its hazardous by-products.
○ Production of H-acid generated toxic effluents, including gypsum
sludge and iron sludge. Approximately 2,440 metric tons of sludge
were produced, much of which was left untreated and dumped
openly.
● Consequences of Pollution:
○ Toxic sludge contaminated the soil and groundwater, rendering
water from local wells unfit for human and animal consumption
and agricultural use.
○ The sludge caused serious health problems, environmental
damage, and economic losses for villagers dependent on
agriculture.
● Government and Legal Action:
○ The Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (RPCB) issued closure
orders to the factories and sought remediation of the hazardous
waste.
○ However, the industries resisted compliance and failed to properly
treat or dispose of the toxic sludge, leading to prolonged litigation.
● Findings from Expert Reports:
○ Reports from NEERI (National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute) and the Central Pollution Control Board
confirmed severe groundwater and soil contamination.
○ The industries showed "scant regard for environmental laws,"
with continued illegal discharge of toxic effluents despite court
orders.
Court’s Analysis:
● The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to comply with
environmental laws and court directives, exacerbating the damage.
● The Court emphasized the applicability of the "Polluter Pays Principle"
and the "Absolute Liability" doctrine, affirming that industries engaged
in hazardous activities must bear the cost of remediation.
4. Conclusion
● The Court directed:
1. The industries to bear the full cost of cleaning up the
environment, restoring groundwater and soil quality, and
compensating affected villagers.
2. The Central Government to ensure the implementation of cleanup
measures and impose strict oversight on similar industrial
activities.
3. Closure of non-compliant factories and periodic environmental
audits to prevent future violations.
● The judgment reinforced the idea that environmental protection is a
fundamental right under Article 21 and underscored the importance of
accountability for environmental harm.
