{"id":42109,"date":"1988-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988"},"modified":"2016-01-04T10:46:49","modified_gmt":"2016-01-04T05:16:49","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1115, \t\t 1988 SCR (2) 530<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.C. MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1115\t\t  1988 SCR  (2) 530\n 1988 SCC  (1) 471\t  JT 1988 (1)\t 69\n\n\nACT:\n     In re.  control, prevention  and abatement of pollution\nof  Ganga   water-In  Kanpur,\tU.P.-Responsibility  of\t the\nmunicipal body in respect thereof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     This Court\t in M.C.  Mehta v.  Union of  India &  ors.<\/a>,\n[1987] 4  S.C.C. 463  had  issued  certain  directions\twith\nregard to  the industries  in which  the business of tanning\nwas being  carried on  near Kanpur on the banks of the River\nGanga. On  that occasion,  the Court  had directed  that the\ncase in\t respect of  the municipal bodies and the industries\nwhich were responsible for the pollution of the water in the\nriver Ganga  would be  taken up\t next, and  accordingly, the\nCourt took up for consideration this case against the Kanpur\nNagar Mahapalika,  since it was found that Kanpur was one of\nthe biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga.\n     Under the\tlaws governing\tthe local  bodies, the nagar\nMahapalikas and\t Municipal Boards were primarily responsible\nfor the\t maintenance of cleanliness in the areas under their\njurisdiction and the protection of their environments. Under\nthe water  (Prevention and  Control of\tPollution) Act, 1974\n(the  'Water   Act')  provisions   had\tbeen  made  for\t the\nestablishment of  Boards for  the prevention  and control of\nwater pollution,  etc.\tThe  Environment  (Protection)\tAct,\n1986,  contained   provisions  relating\t  to  the   control,\nprevention and abatement of pollution of water.\n     Although Parliament  and the State Legislature had thus\nenacted laws,  imposing duties\ton  the\t Central  and  State\nBoards and the municipalities for the prevention and control\nof pollution  of water,\t no adequate  action had  been taken\npursuant to  many of their provisions. 274.50 million litres\na day  of sewage  water was  being discharged into the river\nGanga from  the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the\nState  of   U.P.  Sewer\t  cleaning  had\t  never\t been\tdone\nsystematically in  Kanpur, and there was mal-functioning and\nchoking of  the city  sewerage. Pollution  of water  in\t the\nriver Ganga was of the highest degree at Kanpur, and a large\nextent of  misery, sickness  and  death\t due  to  infectious\ndiseases arose\tout of\twater supplies. The petitioner filed\nthis writ  petition as\ta Public Interest Litigation against\nthe public nuisance\n531\ncaused by  the serious\tpollution of  the river\t Ganga,\t for\nprotecting the lives of the people using the Ganga water.\n     Disposing of the petition, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: The\tpetitioner before the Court was no doubt not\na riparian  owner. He  was a person interested in protecting\nthe lives of the people who made use of the water flowing in\nthe river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition could\nnot be\tdisputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution was a\npublic nuisance,  wide-spread in range and indiscriminate in\nits effect,  and it  would not\tbe reasonable  to expect any\nparticular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct\nfrom the community at large. The petition was entertained as\na Public  Interest Litigation.\tOn  the\t facts\tand  in\t the\ncircumstances of  the case,  the Court\twas of the view that\nthe petitioner\twas entitled  to move  the Court in order to\nenforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the\nmunicipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act, on\naccount of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for\nseveral years,\tthe water  in the  River Ganga at Kanpur had\nbecome so  much polluted  that it could no longer be used by\nthe people  for drinking or bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of\nKanpur\thad   to  bear\tthe  major  responsibility  for\t the\npollution  of\tthe  river   near  the\t Kanpur\t city.\t The\nconstruction of\t certain works,\t undertaken under  the Ganga\nAction Plan  at Kanpur\tto improve  the sewerage  system and\nprevent pollution  of the  water in  the river\tGanga,\twere\ngoing  on   at\ta  snail's  pace.  The\tCourt  expected\t the\nauthorities concerned  would complete those works within the\ntarget dates  mentioned\t in  their  counter-affidavits.\t The\nCourt noticed  that the\t Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet\nsubmitted its  proposals for  sewage treatment\tworks to the\nState Board  constituted under\tWater Act, and directed that\nthe mahapalika\tshould submit  its proposals  to  the  State\nBoard within  six months  (from the  date of this judgment).\n[551H; 552A-F]\n     The Court further directed;\n     (i) The  Kanpur Nagar  Mahapalika\tshould\ttake  action\nunder the  provisions of  the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika\nAdhiniyam, 1959, or the relevant bye-laws made thereunder to\nprevent pollution  of the  water in the river Ganga by waste\naccumulated at\tthe large number of dairies in Kanpur having\nabout 80,000  cattle. The  dairies might  either be  shifted\noutside the  city so  that the\twaste at the dairies did not\nultimately reach  the river  Ganga, or,\t in the alternative,\nthe Mahapalika might arrange for the removal of the waste by\nmotor vehicles, in which\n532\nevent  the  owners  of\tthe  diaries  could  not  claim\t any\ncompensation. The  Mahapalika should immediately take action\nto prevent  collection of  manure  at  private\tmanure\tpits\ninside the city; [552G-H; 553A]\n     (ii) The  Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate\nsteps to  increase the\tsize of\t the sewers  in\t the  labour\ncolonies, so  13  that\tsewage\tmight  be  carried  smoothly\nthrough the  sewerage system, and wherever sewerage line was\nnot yet constructed, steps should be taken to lay it; [553B]\n     (iii) Immediate  action should  also be  taken  by\t the\nKanpur Nagar  Mahapalika to  construct sufficient  number of\npublic latrines\t and urinals to prevent defecation by people\non the open land. The proposal to levy any charge for use of\nsuch latrines  and urinals shall be dropped as that would be\na reason  for poor people not to use the public latrines and\nurinals. The  cost of  maintenance of  cleanliness of  those\nlatrines and  urinals had  to be  borne by  the\t Mahapalika.\n[553C]\n     The Court\twas of\tthe view  that since  the problem of\npollution of  the water\t in the\t river Ganga had become very\nacute, the  High Court\tshould not  ordinarily grant stay of\ncriminal proceedings  in cases\twhere the  Board constituted\nunder the  Water Act  initiated any proceedings to prosecute\nindustrialists or  other persons  who polluted\tthe water in\nthe Ganga, as the stay orders on petitions under section 482\nof the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure,  1973,  frustrated\t the\nattempt of  the Board to enforce the provisions of the Water\nAct, and  further, even if such an order of stay was made in\nany extraordinary case, the High Court should dispose of the\ncase within  a short  period, say  about two months from the\ndate of\t the institution  of the  case, and  further, should\ntake up for hearing all the cases where such orders had been\nissued under  section P\t 482, Cr.P.C.,\tstaying prosecutions\nunder the Water Act. [553E-G]\n     The  Court\t  further  directed  that  the\tpractice  of\nthrowing corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the river Ganga\nshould be  immediately brought\tto an  end. Steps  should be\ntaken  by   the\t Kanpur\t Nagar\tMahapalika  and\t the  police\nauthorities to\tensure that the dead bodies or G- half-burnt\nbodies were not thrown into the river Ganga. [553H; 554A]\n     In future\tj application  for licences to establish new\nindustries should  be refused  unless adequate provision had\nbeen made  for the  treatment of trade effluents flowing out\nof the\tfactories, and\timmediate  action  should  be  taken\nagainst the  existing industries  found responsible  for the\npollution of water. [554B]\n533\n     Having  regard   to  the\tgrave  consequences  of\t the\nPollution of  water and\t air and  need\tfor  protecting\t and\nimproving the  natural environment,  considered to be one of\nthe fundamental\t duties under  the Constitution,  it was the\nduty of the Central Government to direct all the educational\ninstitutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour\nin a  week lessons  on the protection and improvement of the\nnatural environment  including forests,\t lakes,\t rivers\t and\nwild life  in the  first ten classes. The Central Government\nshould get  the text  books written for the said purpose and\ndistributed to\tthe educational\t institutions free  of cost.\nTraining  of  teachers,\t who  teach  this  subject,  by\t the\nintroduction of\t short term  courses for such training shall\nalso be\t considered. This  should be  done throughout India.\n[554C-E]\n     The above\tdirections of  the Court would apply mutatis\nmutandis to  all the  other Mahapalikas\t and Municipalities,\nhaving jurisdiction  over the  areas through which the river\nGanga flows.[555C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     OBSERVATION: The  children should\tbe taught  about the
\nneed for  maintaining cleanliness, of the houses both inside
\nand outside  and of  the streets  in which  they live. Clean
\nsurroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. [554E]
\n     In order  to rouse amongst the people the consciousness
\nof cleanliness\tof environments, the Government of India and
\nthe Governments\t of the States and the Union Territories may
\nconsider the  desirability  of\torganising  ‘keep  the\tcity
\nclean’ week  (Nagar Nirmalikarana  Saptaha)  and  ‘keep\t the
\nvillage clean’\tweek (Gram  Nirmalikarana Saptaha)  in every
\ncity, town  and village\t throughout India  at least  once  a
\nyear. During  that week,  the entire  city, town  or village
\nshould be kept, as far as possible, clean tidy and free from
\npollution of  land, water  and air.  The organisation of the
\nweek should  be entrusted  to the  Nagar  Mahapalikas,\tTown
\nMunicipalities, Municipal Corporation, Village Panchayats or
\nsuch other authorities, having jurisdiction over the area in
\nquestion. If  the authorities decide to organise such a week
\nit may\tnot be\tcelebrated in the same week throughout India
\nbut may\t be staggered  depending upon the convenience of the
\nparticular city,  town or village. During that week, all the
\ncitizens,  including   the   members   of   the\t  executive,
\nParliament,  State   Legislatures  and\t Judiciary  may\t  be
\nrequested to  co-operate with the local authorities and take
\npart in the celebrations by rendering free personal service.
\nThis  would  surely  create  a\tnational  awareness  of\t the
\nproblems faced\tby the\tpeople\tby  the\t appalling  allround
\ndeterioration of the environment which is witnessed today.
\n[554FM; 555A-B]
\n534<\/span>
\n     M.C. Mehta\t v. Union of India & others<\/a>, [1987] 4 S.C.C.
\n463 and Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v.
\nBritish Celanese Limited, [1953] Chancery 149.\n<\/p>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985.
\n     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
\n     Petitioner-in-person .\n<\/p>\n
     B. Datta, Additional Solictor General, R.K. Jain, Vinod
\nBobde, R.N.  Trivedi, K.N.  Bhat, Tapash Ray, B.R.L. Iyenger
\nR.P. Singh,  R.P. Kapur, Ravinder Narain, S. Sukumaran, C.B.
\nSingh, S.K.  Dhingra,  P.K.  Jain,  D.N.  Goburdhan,  Arvind
\nKumar, Ms.  Laxmi Arvind,  Vineet Kumar,  Deepak K.  Thakur,
\nT.V. S.\t N. Chari,  Ms. Vrinda\tGrover, Badri  Nath,  Rakesh
\nKhanna, Mukul  Mudgal, A.K.  Ghose,  M.M.  Gangadeb,  Probir
\nMirtra, Sushil Kumar Jain, Saryakant, Pappy T. Mathews, Mrs,
\nMamta Kachhawaha,  Mrs. Shobha\tDikshit,  G.S.\tMisra,\tS.R.
\nSrivastava, Parijat Sinha, R. Mohan, Ms. .Bina Gupta, Ranjit
\nKumar, Krishna\tKumar, R.C. Verma, Arun Minocha, Sri Narain,
\nE.C. Agrawala,\tS.R. Setia,  H.K. Puri,\t T.S.  Rana,  Pramod
\nSwarup, Ashok  Grover, S.  Markandeya,\tSwarup.\t Ms,  Lalita
\nKohli, K.C. Dua, Rajbirbal, R.A. Gupta and Ms. A. Subhashini
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tBy our\tjudgment dated September 22,
\n1987 in\t M.C. Mehta  v. Union  of India\t & others<\/a>,  [1987] 4
\nS.C.C. 463,  we issued certain directions with regard to the
\nindustries in  which  the  business  of\t tanning  was  being
\ncarried on  at Jajmau  near Kanpur on the banks of the river
\nGanga. On that occasion we directed that the case in respect
\nof the\tmunicipal  bodies  and\tthe  industries\t which\twere
\nresponsible for\t the pollution\tof the\twater in  the  river
\nGanga would  be taken  up for consideration on the next date
\nof hearing.  Accordingly, we took up for consideration first
\nthe case  against the  municipal bodies.  Since it was found
\nthat Kanpur  was one  of the  biggest cities on the banks of
\nthe river  Ganga, we  took up  for consideration the case in
\nrespect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.\n<\/p>\n
     The Kanpur\t Nagar Mahapalika  is established  under the
\nprovisions of  the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam,
\n1959 (hereinafter  referred to\tas  ‘the  Adhiniyam’).\tSub-
\nsection (3) of section
\n535<\/span>
\n1 of the Adhiniyam, which is to be found in its 1st Chapter,
\nprovides that  the 1st\tChapter of  the Adhiniyam shall come
\ninto operation\tat once\t and  the  remaining  provisions  in
\nrelation to  a city shall come into operation from such date
\nas the\tState Government may by notification in the official
\nGazette appoint\t in that  behalf and  different dates may be
\nappointed for  different  provisions.  In  exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred by the said sub-section and in continuation
\nof a  notification dated  September 28,\t 1959 bringing\tinto
\noperation  sections  579  and  580  of\tthe  Adhiniyam,\t the
\nGovernor  of   Uttar  Pradesh\twas  pleased   to  issue   a
\nnotification dated  January 18,\t 1960 appointing the 1st day
\nof February,  1960  as\tthe  date  on  which  the  remaining
\nprovisions  of\t the  Adhiniyam\t and  the  three  Schedules,
\nappended thereto,  would come  into operation in relation to
\nthe cities of Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra and Lucknow,
\nas constituted\tunder section 3 of the Adhiniyam. The duties
\nand powers  of the Mahapalika and Mahapalika authorities are
\nset out\t in Chapter V of the Adhiniyam. Clauses (iii), (vii)
\nand  (viii)   of  section   114\t of   the  Adhiniyam,  which
\nincorporates the  obligatory duties  of the Mahapalika, read
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “114. Obligatory\t duties of the Mahapalika-It
\n\t  shall be  incumbent  on  the\tMahapalika  to\tmake
\n\t  reasonable and adequate provision, by any means or
\n\t  measures which  it is\t lawfully competent to it to
\n\t  use or to take, for each of the following matters,
\n\t  namely,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      . . .. . . .. … . .. .. . . . .. . . .. ….. ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii) the  collection and  removal of sewage,
\n\t  offensive matter  and rubbish\t and  treatment\t and
\n\t  disposal  thereof   including\t  establishing\t and
\n\t  maintaining farm or factory;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ……………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (vii) the  management and  maintenance of all
\n\t  Mahapalika  waterworks  and  the  construction  or
\n\t  acquisition  of   new\t works\t necessary   for   a
\n\t  sufficient supply  of water for public and private
\n\t  purposes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (viii) guarding from pollution water used for
\n\t  human consumption  and preventing  polluted  water
\n\t  from being so used;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ………………………………………..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
536<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sections 251,  388, 396,  297, 398, 405, and 407 of the
\nAdhiniyam read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “251. Provision\tof  means  for\tdisposal  of
\n\t  sewage- The  Mukhya Nagar  Adhikari may,  for\t the
\n\t  purpose   of\t  receiving,   treating,    storing,
\n\t  disinfecting, distributing  or otherwise disposing
\n\t  of sewage,  construct any  work within  or without
\n\t  the City  or purchase\t or take  on lease any land,
\n\t  building, engine,  material  or  apparatus  either
\n\t  within or  without the  City\tor  enter  into\t any
\n\t  arrangement with  any person\tfor any\t period\t not
\n\t  exceeding twenty years for the removal or disposal
\n\t  of sewage within or without the City.
\n\t  ………….. … . …. ……….. .. … .. ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       388. Provision  may be  made by\tMukhya Nagar
\n\t  Adhikari for\tcollection, etc., of excrementitious
\n\t  and polluted\tmatter-(1) The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
\n\t  may  give   public  notice  of  his  intention  to
\n\t  provide, in  such portion  of the  City as  he may
\n\t  specify, for\tthe collection, removal and disposal
\n\t  by Mahapalika\t agency, of  all excrementitious and
\n\t  polluted matter  from privies,  urinals, and cess-
\n\t  pools, and  thereupon it  shall be the duty of the
\n\t  Mukhya Nagar\tAdhikari to  take measures  for\t the
\n\t  daily collection,  removal and  disposal  of\tsuch
\n\t  matter from  all premises situated in such portion
\n\t  of the City.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2) In  any such\t portion as  is mentioned in
\n\t  sub-section (1)  and\tin  any\t premises,  wherever
\n\t  situated, in\twhich there  is\t a  water-closet  or
\n\t  privy connected  with a mahapalika drain, it shall
\n\t  not be  lawful, except with the written permission
\n\t  of the  Mukhya Nagar\tAdhikari, for any person who
\n\t  is not  employed by  or on  behalf of\t the  Mukhya
\n\t  Nagar Adhikari  to discharge\tany of the duties of
\n\t  scavengers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ………………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       396. Removal of carcasses of dead animals-(I)
\n\t  It shall  be the duty of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
\n\t  to provide for the removal of the carcasses of all
\n\t  animals dying within the City.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2) The\toccupier of  any premises in or upon
\n\t  which
\n537<\/span>
\n\t  any animal  shall die\t or in\tor  upon  which\t the
\n\t  carcass of  any animal  shall be  found,  and\t the
\n\t  person having\t the charge of any animal which dies
\n\t  in the  street or  in any open place shall, within
\n\t  three hours  after the death of such animal or. if
\n\t  the death occurs at night within three hours after
\n\t  sunrise. report  the death  of such  animal at the
\n\t  nearest   office    of   the\t Mahapalika   Health
\n\t  Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3) For\tevery carcass  removed by mahapalika
\n\t  agency, whether  from any private premises or from
\n\t  public street\t or place,  a fee for the removal of
\n\t  such amount  as shall be fixed by the Mukhya Nagar
\n\t  Adhikari shall be paid by the owner of the animal,
\n\t  or, if  the owner is not known. by the occupier of
\n\t  the premises in or upon which, or by the person in
\n\t  whose charge, the said animal died.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       397.  Prohibition   of  cultivation,  use  of
\n\t  manure,  irrigation  injurious  to  health-If\t the
\n\t  Director of  Medical and  Health Services  or\t the
\n\t  Civil\t Surgeon  or  the  Nagar  Swasthya  Adhikari
\n\t  certifies that  the cultivation of any description
\n\t  of crops  or the  use of any kind of manure or the
\n\t  irrigation of land in any specified manner-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) in a place within the limits of a City is
\n\t  injurious  or\t  facilitates  practices  which\t are
\n\t  injurious to the health of persons dwelling in the
\n\t  neighbourhood, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) in a place within or beyond the limits of
\n\t  a City  is likely  to contaminate the water-supply
\n\t  of such  City or  otherwise render  it  unfit\t for
\n\t  drinking purpose,
\n\t  the Mukhya  Nagar Adhikari  may by  public  notice
\n\t  prohibit the\tcultivation of such crop, the use of
\n\t  such manure or the use of the method of irrigation
\n\t  so  reported\tto  be\tinjurious,  or\timpose\tsuch
\n\t  conditions with respect thereto as may prevent the
\n\t  injury or contamination:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that when, on any land in respect of
\n\t  which such  notice is\t issued, the  act prohibited
\n\t  has been  practised  in  the\tordinary  course  of
\n\t  husbandry  for  the  five  successive\t years\tnext
\n\t  preceding the\t date of  prohibition,\tcompensation
\n\t  shall be  paid from  the Mahapalika  Fund  to\t all
\n\t  persons interested  therein for  damage caused  to
\n\t  them by such prohibition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
538<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       398. Power  to require  owners to  clear away
\n\t  noxious vegetation-The  Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may,
\n\t  by notice.  require the  owner or  occupier of any
\n\t  land to  clear away  and remove  any vegetation or
\n\t  undergrowth which  may be  injurious to  health or
\n\t  offensive to the neighbourhood.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ………………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       405. Power  to require  removal\tof  nuisance
\n\t  arising  from\t  tanks,  etc.-\t  The  Mukhya  Nagar
\n\t  Adhikari  may\t by  notice  require  the  owner  or
\n\t  occupier of  any  land  or  building\tto  cleanse,
\n\t  repair, cover,  fill up  or drain  off  a  private
\n\t  well,\t tank,\t reservoir.  pool,   depression\t  or
\n\t  excavation therein which may appear to the Mukhiya
\n\t  Nagar\t Adhikari  to  be  injurious  to  health  or
\n\t  offensive to the neighbourhood:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided\t that  the  owner  or  occupier\t may
\n\t  require the  Mukhya Nagar  Adhikari to  acquire at
\n\t  the  expense\t of  the   Mahapalika  or  otherwise
\n\t  provide, any\tland or rights in land necessary for
\n\t  the purpose  of effecting  drainage ordered  under
\n\t  this section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       407. Any\t place may  at any time be inspected
\n\t  for purpose  of  preventing  spread  of  dangerous
\n\t  disease-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time,
\n\t  by day  or day  night,  without  notice  or  after
\n\t  giving such  notice of  his intention\t as shall in
\n\t  the circumstances, appear to him to be reasonable,
\n\t  inspect any  place in\t which any dangerous disease
\n\t  is reputed  or suspected  to exist,  and take such
\n\t  mea
\nsures as  he shall  think fit  to prevent  the spread of the
\n\t  said disease beyond such place. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above\tprovisions deal\t with the specific duties of
\nthe  Nagar   Mahapalika\t or  the  Mukhya  Nagar\t .  Adhikari
\nappointed under the Adhiniyam with regard to the disposal of
\nsewage and  protection of  the environment  in or around the
\nCity to\t which\tthe  Adhiniyam\tapplies.  There\t are  almost
\nsimilar provisions  in sections\t 7,  189,  19  l  and  other
\nprovisions of  the Uttar  Pradesh Municipalities  Act,\t1916
\nwhich applies  to the  smaller municipal  bodies. The  Uttar
\nPradesh\t Water\t Supply\t and   Sewerage\t Act,  1975  imposes
\nstatutory  duties   on\tthe  authorities  mentioned  therein
\nregarding the  provision of  water supply  to the cities and
\ntowns and  construction of  sewerage systems  in  them.\t The
\nperusal of  these provisions in the laws governing the local
\nbodies shows that the
\n539<\/span>
\nNagar Mahapalikas  and the  Minicipal Boards  are  primarily
\nresponsible for\t the maintenance of cleanliness in the areas
\nunder  their   jurisdiction  and  the  protection  of  their
\nenvironment. We\t have, in  the judgment\t delivered by  us on
\nSeptember  22,\t 1987,\tbriefly\t  referred  to\t the   Water
\n(Prevention and\t Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act No. 6
\nof 1974)  (hereinafter referred\t to as\t‘the Water  Act’) in
\nwhich provisions have been made for the establishment of the
\nBoards for  the prevention  and control\t of water pollution,
\nfor conferring\ton and\tassigning to  such Boards powers and
\nfunctions  relating   thereto  and   for  matters  connected
\ntherewith. In  the Water  Act the  expressions\t‘pollution’,
\n‘sewage effluent’,  ‘sewer’, ‘stream’,\tand ‘trade effluent’
\nare defined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “2 Definitions-In this Act, unless the
\n\t  context otherwise requires-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  . . . . . ….. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (e) ‘pollution’\tmeans such  contamination of
\n\t  water or such alteration of the physical, chemical
\n\t  or  biological   properties  of   water  or\tsuch
\n\t  discharge of\tany sewage  or treade effluent or of
\n\t  any other  liquid, gaseous or solid substance into
\n\t  water (whether  directly or  indirectly) as may or
\n\t  is likely  to, create\t a nuisance  or render\tsuch
\n\t  water harmful\t or injurious  to public  health  or
\n\t  safety, or  to domestic,  commercial,\t industrial,
\n\t  agricultural or  other legitimate  uses, or to the
\n\t  life\tand  health  of\t animals  or  plants  or  of
\n\t  acquatic organisms;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  . . . . . …. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (g) ‘sewage effluent’ means effluent from any
\n\t  sewerage  system  or\tsewage\tdisposal  works\t and
\n\t  includes sullage from open drains;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (gg)  ‘sewer’   means  any  conduit  pipe  or
\n\t  channel, open\t or closed, carrying sewage or trade
\n\t  effluent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  . . . . . . .. … . .. .. . .. ……. .. . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (j) ‘stream’ includes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (i) river;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
540<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    (ii) water\tcourse (whether\t flowing  or
\n\t\t\t for the time being dry);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (iii) inland  water (whether  natural or
\n\t\t\t artificial);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (iv) sub-terranean waters;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (v)\t  sea or tidal waters to such extent
\n\t\t\t or, as\t the case  may be,  to\tsuch
\n\t\t\t point\tas   the   State   may,\t  by
\n\t\t\t notification\tin    the   official
\n\t\t\t Gazette, specify in this behalf;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (k) ‘trade  effluent’  includes\tany  liquid,
\n\t  gaseous or  solid substance  which  is  discharged
\n\t  from any  premises used  for carrying on any trade
\n\t  or industry, other than domestic sewage . “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 3\tand 4  of the  Water  Act  provide  for\t the
\nconstitution  of   the\tCentral\t  Board\t and   State  Boards
\nrespectively. A\t State\tBoard  has  been  constituted  under
\nsection 4  of the  Water Act  in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
\nSection 16  of the  Water Act  sets out the functions of the
\nCentral Board  and section 17 of the Water Act lays down the
\nfunctions of  the State\t Board. The functions of the Central
\nBoard are  primarily advisory  and supervisory in character.
\nThe Central  Board is  also required  to advise\t the Central
\nGovernment on  any  matter  concerning\tthe  prevention\t and
\ncontrol of water pollution and to co-ordinate the activities
\nof the\tState Boards.  The Central Board is also required to
\nprovide technical  assistance  and  guidance  to  the  State
\nBoards, carry  out and\tsponsor investigations\tand research
\nrelating to  problems of  water\t pollution  and\t prevention,
\ncontrol or  abatement of  water pollution.  The functions of
\nthe State  Board are  more  comprehensive.  In\taddition  to
\nadvising the  State Government\ton any matter concerning the
\nprevention, control  or abatement  of water  pollution,\t the
\nState Board  is required  among other  things (i)  to plan a
\ncomprehensive  programme  for  the  prevention,\t control  or
\nabatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and
\nto  secure  the\t execution  thereof,  (ii)  to\tcollect\t and
\ndisseminate information\t relating to water pollution and the
\nprevention,  control   or  abatement   thereof;\t  (iii)\t  to
\nencourage, conduct  and participate  in\t investigations\t and
\nresearch  relating   to\t problems  of  water  pollution\t and
\nprevention, control or abatement of water pollution; (iv) to
\ninspect sewage\tor trade effluents, works and plants for the
\ntreatment of  sewage and  trade\t effluents;  (v)  to  review
\nplans, specifications  or other\t data relating to plants set
\nup for the treatment of
\n541<\/span>
\nwater, works for the purification thereof and the system for
\nthe disposal  of sewage\t or trade effluents or in connection
\nwith the  grant of any consent as required by the Water Act;\n<\/p>\n
(vi) to\t evolve economical and reliable methods of treatment
\nof sewage and trade effluents, having regard to the peculiar
\nconditions  of\t soils,\t climate   and\twater  resources  of
\ndifferent regions  and more  especially the  prevailing flow
\ncharacteristics of  water in  streams and wells which render
\nit impossible to attain even the minimum degree of dilution;
\nand (vii)  to lay  down standards of treatment of sewage and
\ntrade effluents\t to be discharged into any particular stream
\ntaking\tinto  account  the  minimum  fair  weather  dilution
\navailable  in  that  stream  and  the  tolerance  limits  of
\npollution permissible  in the water of the stream, after the
\ndischarge of such effluents. The State Board has been given-
\ncertain executive  powers to implement the provisions of the
\nWater Act.  Sections 20,  21 and  23 of the Water Act confer
\npower on the State Board to obtain information necessary for
\nthe implementation  of the  provisions of  the Water Act, to
\ntake samples  of effluents and to analyse them and to follow
\nthe procedure  prescribed in  connection therewith  and\t the
\npower of  entry and  inspection for the purpose of enforcing
\nthe provisions of the Water Act. Section 24 of the Water Act
\nprohibits  the\tuse  of\t stream\t or  well  for\tdisposal  of
\npolluting  matters   etc.   contrary   to   the\t  provisions
\nincorporated in\t that section.\tSection 32  of the Water Act
\nconfers the  power  on\tthe  State  Board  to  take  certain
\nemergency measures  in case  of pollution of stream or well.
\nWhere it  is apprehended  by a\tBoard that  the water in any
\nstream or  well is  likely to  be polluted  by reason of the
\ndisposal of  any matter therein or of any likely disposal of
\nany matter  therein,  or  otherwise,  the  Board  may  under
\nsection 33  of the  Water Act make an application to a court
\nnot inferior  to  that\tof  a  Presidency  Magistrate  or  a
\nMagistrate of  the first  class, for  restraining the person
\nwho is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.\n<\/p>\n
     The Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986, which has also
\nbeen referred  to in  out earlier  judgment,  also  contains
\ncertain provisions  relating to\t the control, prevention and
\nabatement  of\tpollution  of\twater  and  one\t significant
\nprovision in  that Act\tis what\t is contained  in section 17
\nthereof, which provides that where an offence under that Act
\nis committed  by any  Department of  Government, the Head of
\nthat Department\t shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
\nand is liable to be punished.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  unfortunate that  although\tParliament  and\t the
\nState Legislature  have enacted\t the aforesaid laws imposing
\nduties\ton   the  Central   and\t  State\t  Boards   and\t the
\nmunicipalities for prevention and control of
\n542<\/span>
\npollution of  water, many  of  those  provisions  have\tjust
\nremained on  paper without  any adequate  action being taken
\npursuant thereto.  After the  above petition  was filed\t and
\nnotice was sent to the Uttar Pradesh State Board constituted
\nunder the Water Act, an affidavit has been filed before this
\nCourt by  Dr.- G.N.  Misra, Scientific\tofficer of  the U.P.
\nPollution Control  Board setting  out the  information which
\nthe Board  was able  to collect regarding the measures taken
\nby the\tseveral local  bodies and also by the U.P. Pollution
\nControl Board in order to prevent the pollution of the water
\nflowing in the river Ganga. A copy of the report relating to
\nthe inspection\tmade at\t Kanpur on 23.11.87\/24.11.87 by Shri
\nTanzar Ullah Khan, Assistant Environmental Engineer and Shri
\nA.K. Tiwari,  Junior  Engineer\tenclosed  to-  the  counter-
\naffidavit as Exhibit K-5 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “The  inspection\t  made\ton  23.11.87\/24.1.87
\n\t  alongwith  Sri   A.K.\t Tiwari,   Junior  Engineer.
\n\t  Following are\t the facts  observed at\t the time of
\n\t  inspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       1. Kanpur  town is  situated on\tthe southern
\n\t  bank of river Ganges.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       2. The  present population  of  the  town  is
\n\t  approximately 20 lacs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       3. The  city  is\t covered  with\tpiped  water
\n\t  supply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       4.  The\tcity  has  developed  between  river
\n\t  Ganges on  the north\tside and  river Pandu on the
\n\t  south side.  G.T. Road  divides the  city into two
\n\t  halves.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       In the north side most of the area is covered
\n\t  by  sewerage\tsystem\tand  the  sullage\/sewage  is
\n\t  discharged without  treatment\t into  river  Ganges
\n\t  through  17\tnalas  including   sewerage  by-pass
\n\t  channel at Jajmau.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       In the south side there is no sewerage system
\n\t  and  the  sewage\/sullage  are\t discharged  without
\n\t  treatment into  river Pandu through 5 nalas. River
\n\t  Pandu\t joins\triver  Ganges  near  Fatehpur(Sketch
\n\t  enclosed).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       5. The  Kanpur Nagar  mahapalika has  not yet
\n\t  submitted any\t proposal of  sewage treatment works
\n\t  to the Board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
543<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       6. Mr.  Ikramur Rahman, A.E. Nagar Mahapalika
\n\t  told the Kanpur town is covered under Ganga Action
\n\t  Plan and following are the proposals-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (A) U. P. Jal Nigam
\n\t       (1) Re-modelling of sewage pumping station at
\n\t  Jajmau and improvement to sewage farm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2) Nala Tapping.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3) Sewage Treatment Plant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (B) Kanpur Jal Sansthan
\n\t       (1) Cleaning of Trunk and main sewers.
\n\t       (C)  Integrated\tEnvironmental  and  sanitary
\n\t  Engineer project is being executed under the Dutch
\n\t  Assistance in Jajmau Area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1)   Crash    Programme\t  (is\t to   remove
\n\t  deficiencies in the existing sanitary facilities)
\n\t       (2) Laying of Industrial sewer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3) U.A.S.B. Sewage Treatment Plant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Sd\/\t\t\t\t\t\t Sd\/\n\t  A.K.TIWARI\t\t\t (TANZAR ULLAH KHAN)\n\t  J.E.\t\t\t\tASSTT. ENVIRONMENTAL\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  ENGINEER.\"\n<\/pre>\n
     Appendix A\/1  to ‘An  Action  Plan\t for  Prevention  of
\nPollution of  the Ganga’  gives\t the  following\t particulars
\nrelating to  the quantity  of sewerage generated in the City
\nof Kanpur which is discharged into the river Ganga and other
\nrelevant matters:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t     KANPUR
\nPopulation  Estimated water  Estimated sewage  Treatment
\nin 1981\t    supply in 1981   generated (70% of
\n\t\t\t     the water
\n\t\t\t     supply to the city
\n544<\/span>
\n………………………………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.39 lacks  392.14 million  274.50 million  Nil
\n\t     litres a day    litres a day
\n………………………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
     It is  thus seen  that 274.50  million litres  a day of
\nsewage water  is being\tdischarged into the river Ganga from
\nthe city  of Kanpur,  which is\tthe highest  in the State of
\nUttar Pradesh  and next\t only to  the city of Calcutta which
\ndischarges 580. 17 million litres a day of sewage water into
\nthe river  Ganga. Para\t4 of the affidavit filed by Shri Jai
\nShanker\t Tewari,   Executive  engineer\t of   Kanpur   Nagar
\nMahapalika reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “4. That\t the pollution\tin river  Ganga from
\n\t  Kanpur is occurring because of following reasons:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i) About  16 nalas collecting sullage water,
\n\t  sewage,  textile  waste,  power  plant  waste\t and
\n\t  tannery effluents  used to  be discharged  without
\n\t  any treatment\t into the  river. However some Nalas
\n\t  have been trapped now.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) The\t dairies located  in the city have a
\n\t  cattle  population  of  about\t 80.000.  The  dung,
\n\t  fodder waste\tand other  refuse from\tthis  cattle
\n\t  population is quantitatively more than the sullage
\n\t  from the  city of  human  population\tof  over  20
\n\t  lakhs. All  this finds  its way  into the sewerage
\n\t  system and  the nalas\t in the rainy season. It has
\n\t  also totally\tchoked many  branches of  sewers and
\n\t  trunk sewers\tresulting in  the  overflow  of\t the
\n\t  system.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii)  The  night  soil\tcollected  from\t the
\n\t  unsewered areas  of the  city and  thrown into the
\n\t  nalas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iv) There  are more  than  80  tanneries  in
\n\t  Jajmau  whose\t  effluent  used   to  be   directly
\n\t  discharged into the river.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (v) The total water supply in Kanpur is about
\n\t  55 mil  lion gallons per day. After use major part
\n\t  of it\t goes down  the drains,\t nalas\tand  sewers;
\n\t  sewage is  taken to  Jajmau sewage pumping station
\n\t  and a part of it is being supplied to sewage farms
\n\t  after diluting  it with  raw ganges  water and the
\n\t  remaining part is discharged into the river.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (vi) Dhobi Ghats.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (vii)  Defecation   by  economically   weaker
\n\t  sections.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
545<\/span><\/p>\n
The affidavit  further states  that the\t U.P. Jal Nigam, the
\nU.P.   Water   Pollution   Control   Board,   the   National
\nEnvironmental Engineering  Research Institute,\tthe  Central
\nLeather Research Institute, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, the
\nKanpur Development  Authority and  the Kanpur  Jal  Sansthan
\nhave started  taking action to minimise the pollution of the
\nriver Ganga.  It is  also stated  therein that the financial
\nassistance is  being provided by the Central Ganga Authority
\nthrough Ganga  Project Directorate,  State  Government,\t the
\nWorld Bank,  the Dutch\tGovernment etc. for implementing the
\nsaid measures.\tThe said  affidavit gives  information about
\nthe several  works undertaken  at Kanpur  for minimising the
\npollution of  the river Ganga. It also states that Rs.493.63
\nlacs had  been spent  on those\tworks between the years 1985
\nand 1987  and that  the total  allocation of  funds  by\t the
\nCentral Ganga  Authority for  Kanpur is\t Rs.3694.94 lacs and
\nthat upto  the end  of the  current  financial\tyear  it  is
\nproposed to  spend Rs.785.58  lacs (1985 to 1987-88) towards
\nvarious schemes to be completed under Ganga Action Plan. The
\naffidavit points  out that in Kanpur City sewer cleaning has
\nnever been  done systematically\t and in a planned way except
\nthat some  sewers were\tcleaned by the U.P. Jal Nigam around
\n1970. The  main reasons\t for mal-functioning  and choking of
\nthe city  sewerage, according  to  the\taffidavit,  are\t (i)
\nthrowing or discharging of solids, clothes, plastics, metals
\netc. into  the sewerage\t system; (ii)  throwing of  cow dung
\nfrom dairies  which are\t located in  every part\t of the city
\nwhich consists\tof about  80,000  cattle;  (iii)  laying  of
\nunder-sized  sewers   specially\t in  labour  colonies;\t(iv)
\nthrowing of  solid wastes  and malba  from  construction  of
\nbuildings into sewers through manholes; (v) non-availability
\nof mechanical  equipment for  sewer cleaning works; and (vi)
\nshortage of  funds for\tproper maintenance.  It is  asserted
\nthat the  discharge of\tuntreated effluents  into the  river
\nGanga will be stopped upto 80% by March, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri  M.C.\t Mehta,\t the  petitioner  herein,  drew\t our
\nattention to  the Progress  Report of the Ganges Action Plan
\n(July  1986-January   1987)  prepared\tby  the\t  Industrial
\nToxicology  Research   Centre,\tCouncil\t  of  Scientific   &
\nIndustrial Research.  At page  20 of  the  said\t report\t the
\ndetails of the analysis of the Ganga water samples collected
\nduring August,\t1986 to\t January, 1987\tfrom  Uttar  Pradesh
\nregion are  furnished. That  report shows that the pollution
\nof the\twater in the river Ganga is of the highest degree at
\nKanpur. The  Ganga water  samples taken\t at Kanpur show that
\nthe water  in the  river Ganga at Kanpur consisted of 29.200
\nunits (mg\/ml)  of iron in the month of August, 1986 when the
\nISI limit  for river  water is\t0.3  and  0.900\t (mg\/ml)  of
\nmanganese whereas  the WHO  limit of  manganese for drinking
\nwater is
\n546<\/span>
\n0.05. The Progress Report for the period February 1987-June.
\n1987 of Microlevel Intensive Monitoring of Ganga under Ganga
\nAction Plan  describes the  samples of\tthe water taken from
\nthe river Ganga at Kanpur thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “B.O.D. (Bio  oxygen Demand) values are found
\n\t  to be\t higher than  prescribed  values  of  l.S.I.
\n\t  C.O.D. (Chemical  oxygen Demand)  values are\talso
\n\t  found to  be higher. These values clearly indicate
\n\t  that river  water is not fit for drinking, fishing
\n\t  and bathing purposes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Table II\t further shows\tthat Total  Coliform
\n\t  and Fecal  Coliform bacteria are always found very
\n\t  high. This is due to disposal of large quantity of
\n\t  untreated municipal  waste into river Ganga. These
\n\t  high values of bacteria indicate that water is not
\n\t  fit for drinking, bathing and fishing purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       To improve  quality of  water in\t Ganga,\t all
\n\t  nullahs should  be  trapped  immediately  and\t raw
\n\t  water should\tbe treated  conventionally at  water
\n\t  works\t  and\t disinfected   by   chlorination   “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (underlining by us)
\n     In the  concluding part  of the said Progress Report it
\nis stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “The Ganga is grossly polluted at Kanpur. All
\n\t  nullahs are  discharging the\tpolluted waste water
\n\t  into river  Ganga. But  Jajmau  by  pass  channel,
\n\t  Sismau, Muir Mill, Golf Club and Gupta Ghat nullah
\n\t  are discharging  huge quantities of polluted waste
\n\t  water, To  improve the  water quality of Ganga all
\n\t  major nullahs\t should\t be  diverted  and  treated.
\n\t  Combined treatment  should be\t provided for Jajmau
\n\t  tanneries. Effluent  treatment  plants  should  be
\n\t  installed by all major polluting industries.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  needless to\t say that in the tropical developing
\ncountries a  large amount  of misery, sickness and death due
\nto infectious  diseases arises\tout of\twater  supplies.  In
\nLall’s Commentaries  on Water  and Air\tPollution Laws\t(2nd
\nEdition) at pages 331 and 333 it is observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “In the tropics, we cannot safely take such a
\n\t  limited
\n547<\/span>
\n\t  view.\t Such\tWater-borne  diseases\tas  malaria,
\n\t  schistosomiasis, guinea  worm and yellow fever are
\n\t  either terrible  scourges of,\t or threats to, many
\n\t  tropical populations.\t The hazards  from bad water
\n\t  are  thus  much  greater.  Poverty  is  much\tmore
\n\t  serious for  many tropical  areas;  in  the  rural
\n\t  areas-where most  people live-and around the edges
\n\t  of  the  cities,  which  are\tthe  fastest-growing
\n\t  communities.\t most\tpeople\t cannot\t  afford   a
\n\t  conventionally good  water supply  at present, and
\n\t  the choice  in the  short run may be between doing
\n\t  nothing and providing somewhat improved supply. If
\n\t  an ideal  water system  is not possible, there are
\n\t  options as  to what  needs should  be met  by\t the
\n\t  partial improvements.\t To make the right decisions
\n\t  we need  again the  broad picture of water-related
\n\t  diseases.  So,   because  of\tthese  two  tropical
\n\t  characteristics-warmth and  poverty-a\t wider\tview
\n\t  than in temperate lands is necessary.(p.331)
\n\t   . .. . .. . .. … ….. .. …. . . .. .. .. . .
\n\t       Water-borne  diseases-The   classical  water-
\n\t  borne\t diseases   are\t due   to  highly  infective
\n\t  organisms where  only rather\tfew  are  needed  to
\n\t  infect  someone,   relative  to   the\t levels\t  of
\n\t  pollution that  readily occur.  The two chief ones
\n\t  have\ta   high  mortality  if\t untreated  and\t are
\n\t  diseases which  a community  is  very\t anxious  to
\n\t  escape: Typhoid  and cholera.\t Both are relatively
\n\t  fragile organisms whose sole reservoir is man.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       These two diseases occur most dramatically as
\n\t  the ‘common  source out-break\t where\ta  community
\n\t  water supply\tgets contaminated  by faeces  from d
\n\t  person suffering  from, or  carrying, one  of\t the
\n\t  infections. Many  people drink  the  water  and  a
\n\t  number of  these fall\t ill from  the infection  at
\n\t  about the same time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Typhoid\tis  the\t most  cosmopolitan  of\t the
\n\t  classical  water-borne   infections.\tIn   man  it
\n\t  produces  a\tsevere\thigh  fever  with  generated
\n\t  systemic,  more  than\t intestinal,  symptoms.\t The
\n\t  bacteria are\tingested and very few are sufficient
\n\t  to infect.  The typhoid patient is usually too ill
\n\t  to go out polluting the water and is not infective
\n\t  prior o falling sick. However, a small proportion
\n\t  of those  who recover\t clinically continue to pass
\n\t  typhoid bacteria in their faeces for
\n548<\/span>
\n\t  months or  years; these carriers are the source of
\n\t  water borne  infections. Gallstones  predispose to
\n\t  the carrier  state as\t the bacteria persist in the
\n\t  inflamed gall\t bladder. In the tropics, lesions of
\n\t  Schistosoma haematobium in the bladder also act as
\n\t  nide\tof   infection,\t producing  urinary  typhoid
\n\t  carriers, whilst  rectal schistosomiasis  combined
\n\t  with\t typhoid leads\tto a  persistent sever fever
\n\t  lasting many months. Typhoid bacteria survive well
\n\t  in water but do not multiply there.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Cholera is  in some  ways similar to typhoid,
\n\t  but its  causative bacteria  are more\t fragile and
\n\t  the clinical\tcourse\tis  extremely  dramatic.  In
\n\t  classical cholera the onset of diarrhoea is sudden
\n\t  and its  volume  immense  so\tthat  the  untreated
\n\t  victim  has  a  high\tprobability  of\t dying\tfrom
\n\t  dehydration within 24 hours or little more.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Several other  infections are water borne but
\n\t  are  less  important\tthan  typhoid  and  cholera.
\n\t  Leptospirosis,  due  to  a  spirochaete,  has\t its
\n\t  reservoir in wild rodents which pollute the water.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Leptospis can\t penetrate the skin as well as being
\n\t  ingested. They  produce jaundice and fever, called
\n\t  .Weil’s disease, which is severe but not common. ‘
\n     The amount of suffering which the members of the public
\nare likely  to undergo by using highly polluted water can be
\neasily gathered from the above extract.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  book entitled  ‘Water Pollution and disposal of
\nWaste Water  on Land’  (1983) by  U.N. Mahida. I.S.E. (Retd)
\nthe problem  of water  pollution, the benefits of control of
\npollution and  the urgency  of the  problem have  been dealt
\nwith. At pages l, 2, 4 and S of the said book it is observed
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “As long\t as the\t human population  was small
\n\t  and communities were scattered over large areas of
\n\t  land, the  disposal of  human\t wastes\t created  no
\n\t  problems.   People   could   defecate\t  in   areas
\n\t  surrounding villages\tand  other  habitations\t and
\n\t  leave it  to nature  to dispose  of the  waste  by
\n\t  assimilation in  the surrounding land and air. But
\n\t  as  communities   became  more   concentrated\t and
\n\t  villages and\ttowns grew,  such a mode of disposal
\n\t  by  natural\tagencies  came\tto  be\treplaced  by
\n\t  organised disposal, though again through
\n549<\/span>
\n\t  the agency  of natural  land and soil columns. The
\n\t  collection of\t human excreta\tand its\t disposal in
\n\t  earthen trenches was resorted to by many towns and
\n\t  adopted the basket privy system.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The introduction\t of a  system of water-borne
\n\t  sewage created  new problems\tin the\tdisposal  of
\n\t  human\t wastes,  as  now  along  with\tthe  earlier
\n\t  problem of  getting rid  of  solid  wastes,  i.e.,
\n\t  human excreta,  the problem of the disposal of the
\n\t  water employed for the removal of human wastes had
\n\t  also to  be faced.  This was\tthe  origin  of\t the
\n\t  problem of  sewage disposal. At first, the natural
\n\t  instinct was\tto channelize  the sewage-the soiled
\n\t  water-to natural  streams and\t rivers. For  a time
\n\t  this mode  of disposal  was even  considered quite
\n\t  efficacious.\t Such\tmethods\t  did\tnot   create
\n\t  difficulties as  sewage discharges  were small  as
\n\t  compared  to\t the  stream   flow.  But  with\t the
\n\t  increased   discharge\t  of   progressively   large
\n\t  quantities of\t sewage, polluted  streams became  a
\n\t  serious menace to public health.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
\n\t       The introduction\t of  modern  water  carriage
\n\t  systems transferred  the sewage  disposal from the
\n\t  streets  and\tthe  surroundings  of  townships  to
\n\t  neighbouring streams\tand  rivers.  This  was\t the
\n\t  beginning of the problem of water pollution. It is
\n\t  ironic that  man, from  the  earliest\t times,\t has
\n\t  tended to  dispose  of  his  wastes  in  the\tvery
\n\t  streams and rivers from which most of his drinking
\n\t  water is  drawn. Until quite recently this was not
\n\t  much of a problem, but with rapid urbanisation and
\n\t  industrialisation, the problem of the pollution of
\n\t  natural waters is reaching alarming proportions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       The most\t disturbing feature  of this mode of
\n\t  disposal is  that those  who cause water pollution
\n\t  are seldom  the people  who suffer from it. Cities
\n\t  and industries  discharge their  untreated or only
\n\t  partially  treated  sewage  and  industrial  waste
\n\t  waters  into\t neighbouring  streams\tand  thereby
\n\t  remove waste\tmatter from their own neighbourhood.
\n\t  But in  doing so, they create intense pollution in
\n\t  streams  and\trivers\tand  expose  the  downstream
\n\t  riparian  population\t to  dangerously  unhygienic
\n\t  conditions. In addition to the with-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
550<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  drawal of  water for\tdownstream towns and cities,
\n\t  in many  developing countries,  numerous  villages
\n\t  and  riparian\t agricultural  population  generally
\n\t  rely on  streams and rivers for drinking water for
\n\t  themselves and their cattle, for cooking, bathing,
\n\t  washing  and\tnumerous  other\t uses.\tIt  is\tthus
\n\t  riparian   population\t   that\t  specially    needs
\n\t  protection  from   the  growing  menace  of  water
\n\t  pollution. (pages 1 and 2)
\n\t  ………………………………………….
\n\t  BENEFITS OF CONTROL
\n\t       The benefits which result from the prevention
\n\t  of water  pollution include  a general improvement
\n\t  in the  standard of  health of the population, the
\n\t  possibility of  restoring stream  waters to  their
\n\t  original beneficial  state and  rendering them fit
\n\t  as sources of water supply, and the maintenance of
\n\t  clean and  healthy surroundings  which would\tthen
\n\t  offer\t attractive  recreational  facilities.\tSuch
\n\t  measures would also restore fish and other aquatic
\n\t  life.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Apart from  its menace  to  health,  polluted
\n\t  water considerably  reduces the water resources of
\n\t  a nation.  Since the\ttotal amount  of a country’s
\n\t  utilisable water  remains essentially the same and
\n\t  the demand for water is always increasing, schemes
\n\t  for the  prevention  of  water  pollution  should,
\n\t  wherever possible,  make the\tbest use  of treated
\n\t  waste waters\teither in  industry or\tagriculture.
\n\t  Very often such processes may also result in other
\n\t  benefits  in\t addition   to\t mere\treuse.\t The
\n\t  application  of  effluents  on  agricultural\tland
\n\t  supplies not\tonly much  needed water\t to  growing
\n\t  crops but  also manurial ingredients; the recovery
\n\t  of commercially  valuable ingredients\t during\t the
\n\t  treatment of\tindustrial waste waters often yields
\n\t  by-products which  may to  some extent  offset the
\n\t  cost of treatment
\n\t       If appropriate  financial  credits  could  be
\n\t  calculated  in   respect  of\t these\t and   other
\n\t  incidental benefits,\tit would  be  apparent\tthat
\n\t  measures for\tthe prevention\tof pollution are not
\n\t  unduly costly\t and are  within the  reach  of\t all
\n\t  nations, advanced  or developing.  It is fortunate
\n\t  that people  are be  coming more  receptive to the
\n\t  idea of sharing the financial burden for lessening
\n\t  pollution. It is now recognised in most
\n551<\/span>
\n\t  countries  that   it\tis   the  responsibility  of
\n\t  industries to\t treat their  trade wastes in such a
\n\t  way that  they do  not deteriorate  the quality of
\n\t  the receiving\t waters, which\totherwise would make
\n\t  the  utilisation  of\tsuch  polluted\twaters\tvery
\n\t  difficult or costly for downstream settlers.
\n\t  URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM
\n\t       The   crucial   question\t  is   not   whether
\n\t  developing countries\tcan afford such measures for
\n\t  the control  of water\t pollution but it is whether
\n\t  they can afford to neglect them. The importance of
\n\t  the latter  is emphasised  by the fact that in the
\n\t  absence of adequate measures for the prevention or
\n\t  control  of\twater  pollution,   a  nation  would
\n\t  eventually be\t confronted with  far  more  onerous
\n\t  burdens to  secure wholesome and adequate supplies
\n\t  of water  for different  purposes.  If  developing
\n\t  countries embark  on suitable pollution prevention
\n\t  policies  during   the  initial  stages  of  their
\n\t  industrialisation,  they   can  avoid\t the  costly
\n\t  mistakes committed  in the  past by many developed
\n\t  countries. It\t is, however,  unfortunate that\t the
\n\t  importance of\t controlling pollution\tis generally
\n\t  not realised until considerable damage has already
\n\t  been done; (Pages 3 and 4)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t common\t  law  the   Municipal\tCorporation  can  be
\nrestrained by  an injunction  in  an  action  brought  by  a
\nreparian owner\twho has suffered on account of the pollution
\nof the\twater in  a  river  caused  by\tthe  Corporation  by
\ndischarging into  the river  insufficiently  treated  sewage
\nfrom discharging  such sewage  into the\t river. In  Pride of
\nDerby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese
\nLtd., [19531  Chancery 149  the second\tdefendant, the Derby
\nCorporation admitted  that it  had polluted  the plaintiff’s
\nfishery\t in   the  River  Derwent  by  discharging  into  it
\ninsufficiently treated sewage, but claimed that by the Derby
\nCorporation Act,  1901 it  was under  a duty  to  provide  a
\nsewerage system,  and that  the system which had accordingly
\nbeen provided had become inadequate solely from the increase
\nin the population of Derby. The Court of Appeal held that it
\nwas not\t inevitable that  the work constructed under the Act
\nof 1901\t should cause  a nuisance,  and that in any case the
\nAct  on\t  its  true   construction  did\t not  authorise\t the
\ncommission of  a nuisance. The petitioner in the case before
\nus is  no doubt\t not  a\t riparian  owner.  He  is  a  person
\ninterested in  protecting the  lives of\t the people who make
\nuse of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to
\nmaintain the petition cannot be dis-\n<\/p>\n
552<\/span><\/p>\n
puted. The  nuisance caused  by the  pollution of  the river
\nGanga is  a public  nuisance, which  is wide spread in range
\nand indiscriminate  in\tits  effect  and  it  would  not  be
\nreasonable  to\t expect\t any   particular  person   lo\ttake
\nproceedings to\tstop it\t as distinct  from the\tcommunity at
\nlarge.\tThe  petition  has  been  entertained  as  a  Public
\nInterest Litigation.  On the  facts and in the circumstances
\nof the\tcase we\t are of\t the view  that\t the  Petitioner  is
\nentitled  to  move  this  Court\t in  order  to\tenforce\t the
\nstatutory provisions  which impose  duties on  the municipal
\nauthorities and\t the Boards constituted under the Water Act.
\nWe have\t already set  out the  relevant\t provisions  of\t the
\nstatute\t which\t impose\t those\tduties\ton  the\t authorities
\nconcerned. On account of their failure to obey the statutory
\nduties for  several years  the water  in the  river Ganga at
\nKanpur has  become so much polluted that it can no longer be
\nused by\t the people  either for drinking or for bathing. The
\nNagar  Mahapalika   of\tKanpur\t has  to   bear\t the   major
\nresponsibility for  the pollution  of the  river near Kanpur
\ncity.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  no doubt  true that\t the construction of certain
\nworks has  been undertaken  under the  Ganga Action  Plan at
\nKanpur in  order to  improve  the  sewerage  system  and  to
\nprevent pollution of the water in the river Ganga. But as we
\nsee from  the affidavit\t filed on  behalf of the authorities
\nconcerned in  this case\t the works are going on at a snail’s
\npace. We  find from  the affidavits  filed on  behalf of the
\nKanpur Nagar  Mahapalika that certain target dates have been
\nfixed for the completion of the works already undertaken. We
\nexpect the  authorities concerned  to complete\tthose  works
\nwithin the  target dates  mentioned in the counter-affidavit
\nand not\t to delay  the completion  of the works beyond those
\ndates.\tIt  is,\t however,  noticed  that  the  Kanpur  Nagar
\nMahapalika has\tnot yet\t submitted its\tproposals for sewage
\ntreatment works\t to the\t State Board  constituted under\t the
\nWater Act.  The Kanpur\tNagar Mahapalika  should submit\t its
\nproposals to the State Board within six months from today.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  seen that  there is a large number of dairies in
\nKanpur in  which there\tare about  80,000 cattle. The Kanpur
\nNagar Mahapalika  should take action under the provisions of
\nthe Adhiniyam  or the  relevant bye-laws  made thereunder to
\nprevent the  pollution of  the water  in the  river Ganga on
\naccount of  the waste accumulated at the dairies. The Kanpur
\nNagar Mahapalika may either direct the dairies to be shifted
\nto a place outside the city so that the waste accumulated at
\nthe dairies  does not ultimately reach the river Ganga or in
\nthe alternative it may arrange for the removal of such waste
\nby employing motor vehicles to transport such waste from the
\nexisting dairies in which even
\n553<\/span>
\nthe owners of the dairies cannot claim any compensation. The
\nKanpur Nagar  Mahapalika should\t immediately take  action to
\nprevent the  collection of  manure at  private\tmanure\tpits
\ninside the city.\n<\/p>\n
     The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps
\nto increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies so
\nthat the sewage may be carried smoothly through the sewerage
\nsystem. Wherever  sewerage line is not yet constructed steps
\nshould be taken to lay it.\n<\/p>\n
     Immediate action  should also  be taken  by the  Kanpur
\nNagar Mahapalika  to construct\tsufficient number  of public
\nlatrines and urinals for the use of the poor people in order
\nto prevent  defecation by them on open land. The proposal to
\nlevy any  charge for making use of such latrines and urinals
\nshall be  dropped as  that would  be a\treason for  the poor
\npeople not  using the  public latrines and urinals. The cost
\nof maintenance\tof cleanliness of those latrines and urinals
\nhas to be borne by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  submitted before  us  that\twhenever  the  Board
\nconstituted under the Water Act initiates any proceedings to
\nprosecute industrialists  or other  persons who\t pollute the
\nwater in  the  river  Ganga,  the  persons  accused  of\t the
\noffences immediately  institute petitions  under section 482
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the High Court and
\nobtain stay orders thus frustrating the attempt of the Board
\nto enforce  the provisions  of the  Water Act. They have not
\nplaced before  us the  facts of any particular case. We are,
\nhowever, of  the view that since the problem of pollution of
\nthe water  in the river Ganga has become very acute the High
\nCourts\tshould\tnot  ordinarily\t grant\torders\tof  stay  of
\ncriminal proceedings in such cases and even if such an order
\nof stay\t is made  in any extra-ordinary case the High Courts
\nshould dispose\tof the case within a short period, say about
\ntwo months,  from the  date of the institution of such case.
\nWe request  the High  Courts to\t take up for hearing all the
\ncases where  such orders have been issued under sections 482
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 staying prosecutions
\nunder the  Water Act  within two months. The counsel for the
\nBoard constituted  under the  Water Act shall furnish a list
\nof such\t cases to  the Registrar of the concerned High Court
\nfor appropriate action being taken thereon.\n<\/p>\n
     One other\taspect to which our attention has been drawn
\nis the\tpractice of  throwing corpses and semi-burnt corpses
\ninto the  river Ganga.\tThis practice  should be immediately
\nbrought to an end. The co-operation of the people and police
\nshould be sought in enforcing
\n554<\/span>
\nthis restriction.  Steps shall\tbe taken by the Kanpur Nagar
\nMahapalika and\tthe Police  authorities to  ensure that dead
\nbodies or  half burnt  bodies are  not thrown into the river
\nGanga.\n<\/p>\n
     Whenever applications  for licences  to  establish\t new
\nindustries are\tmade in\t future, such  applications shall be
\nrefused unless\tadequate provision  has been  made  for\t the
\ntreatment of  trade effuents  flowing out  of the factories.
\nimmediate  action  should  be  taken  against  the  existing
\nindustries if  they are\t found responsible  tor pollution of
\nwater.\n<\/p>\n
     Having  regard   to  the\tgrave  consequences  of\t the
\npollution of  water and\t air and the need for protecting and
\nimproving the  natural environment which is considered to be
\none of\tthe fundamental\t duties under the Constitution [vide
\nClause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution] we are of the
\nview that it is the duty of the Central Government to direct
\nall the\t educational institutions  throughout India to teach
\natleast for  one hour  in a  week lessons  relating  to\t the
\nprotection and\tthe improvement\t of the\t natural environment
\nincluding forests,  lakes, L)  livers and  wild life  in the
\nfirst ten  classes. The\t Central Government  shall get\ttext
\nbooks written  for the\tsaid purpose  and distribute them to
\nthe educational\t institutions free  of cost. Children should
\nbe  taught   about  the\t need  for  maintaining\t cleanliness
\ncommencing with the cleanliness of the house both inside and
\noutside, and  of the  streets  in  which  they\tlive.  Clean
\nsurroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. Training
\nof teachers  who teach\tthis subject  by the introduction of
\nshort  term   courses  for   such  training  shall  also  be
\nconsidered. This should be done throughout India.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to rouse amongst the people the consciousness
\nof cleanliness\tof environment\tthe Government\tof India and
\nthe  Governments   1.  Of   the\t States\t and  of  the  Union
\nTerritories may\t consider  the\tdesirability  of  organising
\n‘Keep the  city clean’\tweek (Nagar Nirrnalikarana Saptaha),
\n‘Keep the  town clean  week (Pura Nirmalikarana saptaha) and
\n‘Keep the village clean week (Grama Nirmalikarna Saptaha) in
\nevery city,  town and village throughout India at least once
\na year.\t During that  week the\tentire city, town or village
\nshould be  kept as far as possible clean, tidy and free from
\npollution of  land, water  and air.  The organisation of the
\nweek should be entrusted to the Nagar Mahapalikas, Municipal
\nCorporations, Town  Municipalities,  Village  Panchayats  or
\nsuch other  local authorities  having jurisdiction  over the
\narea in question. If the-authorities decide to organise such
\na week\tit may not be celebrated in the same week throughout
\nIndia but may he staggered depending upon the convenience of
\nthe particular city, town
\n555<\/span>
\nor village.  During that week all the citizens including the
\nmembers of  the executive,  members of\tParliament  and\t the
\nState  Legislatures,   members\tof   the  judiciary  may  be
\nrequested to  co-operate with  the local  authorities and to
\ntake part  in the  celebrations by  rendering free  personal
\nservice. This  would surely  create a  national awareness of
\nthe problems  faced by the people by the appalling all-round
\ndeterioration of  the environment  which we  are  witnessing
\ntoday.\tWe  request  the  Ministry  of\tEnvironment  of\t the
\nGovernment of  India to\t give a serious consideration to the
\nabove suggestion.\n<\/p>\n
     What we  have stated  above applies mutatis mutandis to
\nall  other   Mahapalikas  and\tMunicipalities\twhich\thave
\njurisdiction over  the areas  through which  the river Ganga
\nflows. Copies  of this\tjudgment shall\tbe sent\t to all such
\nNagar Mahapalikas  and Municipalities.\tThe case against the
\nNagar Mahapalikas  and Municipalities  in the state of Uttar
\nPradesh shall  stand adjourned\tby six\tmonths. Within\tthat
\ntime all  the Nagar  Mahapalikas and  Municipalities in\t the
\nState of  Uttar Pradesh\t through whose areas the river Ganga
\nflows shall  file affidavits  in this  Court explaining\t the
\nvarious\t steps\t they  have  taken  for\t the  prevention  of
\npollution of  the water\t in the\t river Ganga in the light of
\nthe  above   judgment.\tThe  case  as  against\tthe  several
\nindustries in  the State  of Uttar Pradesh which are located
\non the banks of the river Ganga will he taken up for hearing
\non the 9th of February, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
S . L.\t\t\t\t       Petition disposed of.\n556<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1988 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"46 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\"},\"wordCount\":7845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"46 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988","datePublished":"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988"},"wordCount":7845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988","name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-04T05:16:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-january-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}