Water - Air

The following presentations offer a structured outline for the
Environmental Law course. These materials are provided for

educational purposes only and they are not comprehensive in terms
of the course's full content.
WATER
https://create.kahoot.it/
Who is the owner of the water?
• In India, water is considered a public resource, and it is owned by the
state governments. The legal framework for the ownership and
management of water resources in India is primarily governed by the
principles of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD).
• States also have the authority to grant usage rights, permits, and
licenses to individuals, industries, and other entities for various
purposes, such as drinking water supply, irrigation, industrial use, and
hydropower generation.
RIGHT TO WATER
• Mar del Plata UN Water Conference, 1977
“All peoples, whatever their stage of development and social and economic conditions,
have the right to have access to drinking water in quantities and of a quality equal to
their basic needs”.
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979
Article 14(2)(h) to enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing,
sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and communication”.
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 24(2) to combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of
primary health care, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and
thorugh the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water, taking
into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution.
RIGHT TO WATER
• International Conference on Water and Sustainable Development (Dublin
Conference), 1992
Principle 4: it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all human beings to have
access to clean water and sanitation at an affordable price.
• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio summit, 1992
Chapter 18 of Agenda 21: all peoples have the right to have access to drinking
water, and called this “the commonly agreed premise”
• United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, 1994
All individuals have the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and
their families, including adequate food, clothing, housing, water sanitation.
RIGHT TO WATER
• UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/54/175, 1999
Article 12: the rights to food and clean water are fundamental rights and
their promotion constitutes a moral imperative both for national
governments and for the international community.
• General Comment No. 15, 2002
Interpreting the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights: the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in
human dignity, it is a prerequiste for the realization of other human rights.
• Draft Guidelines for the Realization of the Right to Drinking Water and
Sanitation, 2005
RIGHT TO WATER
• Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006
Article 28: to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities to clean
water services and to ensure access to appropiate and affordable
services, devices and other assistance for disability-related needs.
• UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/64/292, 2010
Acknowledge the human right to water – right to receive safe,
affordable, and clean accessible water and sanitation service for all.
RIGH TO WATER
• On September 25, 2015, the United Nations General Assembly
formally adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
through Resolution A/RES/70/1. This resolution, titled "Transforming
Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," outlines
the agenda's goals, targets, and principles.
• Those goals were building on the principle of “leaving no one behind”.
Right to Water in the Indian Constitution
• Article 21. Right to life
• Article 39(b) the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of
the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common
good.
• Article 51(A)(g) It shall be the duty of every citizen of India – to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Right to Water in the Indian
Jurisprudence
• Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991)
“The right to live includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free
water and air for full enjoyment of life”
• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996)
“The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to
fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but the source of
the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment”
Right to Water in the Indian
Jurisprudence
• Delhi Water Supply and Sewage v State of Haryana (1996)
“Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bound
into a course, an oppression. The primary use to which the water is put being
drinking. A river has to flow through some territory; and it would be travesty of
justice if the upper-riparian states were to use its water for purposes like irrigation,
denying the lower riparian states the benefit of using the water even for quenching
the thirst of its residents”
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000)
“Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to
life and human rights as enshrined in article 21”
• State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh (2000)
“The right to water is a right to life, and thus a fundamental right”
Indian Regulations
• Indian Easement Act, 1882
It was passed long before the Independence of India in 1882 by the British
rulers. This Act recognizes the right of a riparian owner to use the water of
the stream which flows past his land equally with other riparian owners, and
to have the water come to him undimished in flow, quantity and quality and
to go beyond his land without obstruction.
In India, riparian rights refer to the rights and privileges that landowners or
residents located along the banks of a river have in relation to that river.
These rights are not absolute, and they are subject to regulatory control.
• Use Rights: People living next to a river can typically access and use
water for reasonable and customary purposes such as drinking,
bathing, cooking, and other domestic needs. These rights are
considered riparian rights, and they are not absolute but subject to
reasonable and equitable use.
• Permits and licenses : The usage of river water, especially for irrigation,
industrial purposes, or hydropower generation, is subject to permits
and licenses issued by government authorities. These permits often
come with conditions and regulations to ensure sustainable use and
minimize any adverse impacts on the river ecosystem and other users.
• Fishing, boating and navigation are consider a public right.
Indian Regulations
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
This legislation aims to regulate and manage the discharge of pollutants
into water bodies and to maintain or restore the quality of water to
acceptable standards in order to safeguard the environment and public
health.
It provides for the establishment of Central and State Pollution Control
Boards.
Indian Regulations
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
• The Water Act is comprehensive in its coverage, applying to streams, inland waters, subterranean
waters and sea or tidal waters.
• Standards for the discharge of effluents or the quality of the receiving waters are not specified
in the Act itself. Instead, the Act enables State Boards to prescribe these standards.
• The Water Act regulates water pollution through a system of ‘command and control.’
• A person must obtain consent from the State Board before taking steps to establish any
industry, operation or process, any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition
to such a system which might result in the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream,
well or sewer or onto land.
• The 1988 amendment introduced a new provision, section 33A, which empowers State Boards
to issue directions to any person, officer or authority, including orders to close, prohibit or
regulate any industry, operation or process and to stop or regulate the supply of water,
electricity or any other service.
• The Central Government may then direct the Central board to perform the functions of the state
board.
 Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Since 1982, the Central board has been attached to the Union Government’s Department of
Environment, Forests, and Wildlife
• Advising the Central Government on any matter relating to the improvement of quality water
and the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution.
• Planning and causing to be executed a nation-wide programs
• Coordinating activities of SPCBs and resolving disputes among them.
• Providing technical assistance and guidance to state boards.
• Planning and organizing training of persons engaged in programs.
• Organizing comprehensive programs through mass media.
• Publishing technical and statistical data and disseminating information, and preparing manuals,
codes or guides laying down standards for the quality of water.
• Collecting and disseminating information in respect of matters relating to water pollution and
establishing or recognizing a laboratory or laboratories to enable the Central Board to perform
its functions.
Powers of the CPCB
• Every State Board shall be bound by such directions in writing as given
by the CPCB.
• CPCB is empowered to perform any functions of the SPCB, when it
has defaulted in complying with the directions of the CPCB and non-
compliance is resulting in grave emergency.
State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB)
• Granting consent to establish producing units, to operation of units, and to
set up standards for air and water pollution.
• It has the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to contract and
may also by its name sue or be sued.
• A Board may issue directions to any person, officer and authority and its
power to give directions could include power to order closure, prohibition or
regulation of any industry, operation or process; or the stoppage or
regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service.
• The Act empowers a State Board, upon 30 days’ notice to a polluter, to
execute any work required under a consent order which has not been
executed. The board may recover the expenses for such work from the
polluter.
State Pollution Control Boards
• Power to control establishment and alteration of units. The provisions of the
legislation provide restrictions on new outlets and new discharges and state that no
person shall, without the previous consent of SPCB establish or take any step to
establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment or disposal system
or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade
effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land; or bring into use any new or
altered outlet outlet for the discharge of sewage, or begin to make any new
discharge of sewage.
• The statute provide that the consent will be valid only for such period as may be
specified in the order.
• The Water Act provides that if a person was already discharging any sewage or trade
effluent before the commencement of the Water Act, such person must also seek
the consent of the SPCB within a prescribed time-period.
• Powers of the SCPBs
The SPCB also has the power to entry and inspection and the statute
provides that any person authorized in this behalf by the SCPB shall
have the right to enter any place at any time for the purpose of any
functions entrusted by the Board.
The SPCB or any officer empowered may call for any information from
the occupier or any other person carrying oil or operating any industry
or operating any control equipment or industrial plant.
Both (CPCB and SPCB) have the power to issue orders regarding
closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process;
or stoppage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other
service.
Indian Regulations
• National Water Policies
Adopted in 2012, it aims at addressing concerns such as the scarcity of
water and its distribution. The emphasis is on the integrated approach
in planning, management and use of water resources. Conservation of
river corridors, water bodies and infrastructure should be undertaken in
a scientifically planned manner through community participation.
It aims at setting water allocation priorities as drinking water, irrigation,
hydro-power, ecology, agro-industries and non-agricultural industries,
navigation and other uses.
Indian Regulations
• Ground Water Regulations
Under Section 3 (3) of the Environment Act, 1986 Central Ground
Water Authority has been constituted to regulate and control the
development and management of ground water resources in the
country. It regulates the withdrawal of ground water by
industries/projects.
Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. V Central Board for the Prevention and
Control of Water Pollution
AIR 1986 Del 152
Issue:
Whether the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is liable to the set
aside on account of not following the procedure laid down in Section
21 of the Water Act, 1974?
Facts
• This petition was filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint filed by the
respondents under Section 33(1) of the Water Act, against the petitioners for
discharging trade effluents in the river Yamuna.
• The petitioner contended that the sample of the trade effluent was not taken
as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and therefore it was
inadmissible as evidence.
• The Board sued under section 33 and the magistrate’s court issued an
injunction requiring the company to establish a treatment plant. The
company challenged the injunction, claiming that a representative of the
company, present at the sampling, had requested that a sample be analysed
by the Delhi administration laboratory as provided under section 21(e) of the
Act. This analysis was not carried out.
Section 33. Power of Board to make application to Courts for restraining
apprehended pollution of water in streams or Wells
[(1) Where it is apprehended by a Board that the water in any stream or well is
likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal or likely disposal of any matter in
such stream or well or in any sewer or on any land, or otherwise, the Board may
make an application to a court, not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, for restraining the person who is likely to
cause such pollution from so causing.]
Section 21. A State Board or any officer empowered by it in this
behalf shall have power to take for the purpose of analysis samples
of water from any stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade
effluent which is passing from any plant or vessel or from or over any
place into any such stream or well.
Section 21 (2) The result of any analysis of a sample of any sewage or trade effluent
taken shall not be admissible in evidence in any legal proceeding unless the
provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) are complied with.
(3) The person taking the sample shall—
(a) serve on the person in charge of, or having control over, the plant or vessel or in
occupation of the place (which person is hereinafter referred to as the occupier) or
any agent of such occupier, a notice, then and there in such form as may be
prescribed of his intention to have it so analysed;
(b) in the presence of the occupier or his agent, divide the sample into two parts;
(c) cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be marked and sealed and
shall also be signed both by the person taking the sample and the occupier or his
agent;
(d) send one container forthwith,
Section 21 (2)
(d) send one container forthwith,
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any area situated in a Union territory, to
the laboratory established or recognised by the Central Board under section 16; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or recognised by the State Board
under section 17;
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any area situated in a Union territory, to
the laboratory established or specified under sub-section (1) of section 51; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or specified under sub-section (1) of
section 52.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Supreme
Court Magistrates to exercise its inherent powers to:
• Make orders that are necessary to give effect to any order passed
under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Prevent the abuse of the process of any court.
• Secure the ends of justice.
Judgment
• As per the provisions of the Act, a sample of water must be lifted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act so as to be
admissible as evidence in the legal proceedings under Section 33 of the Act.
• It was admitted fact that a demand was made by the said representative of
the company to the officials of the Board to divide the sample into two
parts and to get the sample analyzed in accordance with the Act, but that
request was not acceded to. Therefore, the Court held that the officials of
the Board were not justified in getting the sample of water analyzed from a
laboratory only recognized by the Board without complying with
requirements of Section 21.
• Hence, in the absence of any admissible evidence, the Court accepted the
petition setting aside the Magistrate’s order.
Narula Dyeing & Printing Works v Union of India
AIR 1995 Guj 185
Issue:
Whether the directions issued by the State Government for closure of
the petitioner industries is valid?
Facts
• Narula Dyeing was releasing untreated effluents into the Kharicut Canal for over a decade,
though its 12-year-old consent required the firm to set up a treatment plant within six months.
• This petition was filed by the industrial units against the directions given by the State
Government under Section 5 of the Environment Act, to stop production activities and take
necessary steps to make the waste water being discharged by the units to conform to the
standards specified by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board.
• The petitioners contended that the directions were given without giving any opportunity to be
heard to them.
• The respondents contended that the petitioners did not have any operative effluent treatment
plants and had been in violation of the terms of the consent letter given by the State Board. It
was also submitted that the directions dispensing with the issuance of notice of hearing was
given in accordance with Rule 4(5) after satisfying itself about the urgency.
Environment Protection Act. Section 5. Power to give directions.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the
provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, in the exercise of its
powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue directions in
writing to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or
authority shall be bound to comply with such directions. Power to –
(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or
process; or
(b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other
service.
• In view of the fact that the petitioner had failed to comply with
the condition to putting up effluent treatment plan given in the
consent order, the Court stated that the said order would be
deemed to have lapsed.
• On the issue of delegation the Court found, that the directions
given by the State Government were given pursuant to a
notification under section 23 of the Water Act which provided for
delegation of powers by the Central Government and therefore
were valid.
• It was also found that the State Government gave the
impugned directions dispensing with the issue of notice under
rule 4-5 only after being satisfied of the grave and serious
pollution being caused due to the discharge of untreated
effluents by the petitioners resulting in severe damage to
crops and fertile lands.
• It was, therefore, held that the State government was fully
justified in proceeding under Rule 4(5) while exercising its
delegated powers for issuing direction under Section 5 of the
Act.
Judgment
• A mere consent order issued by the State Board under
Section 25 (2) did not entitle the applicant to discharge
trade effluents and it was incumbent upon the applications
to comply with the conditions mentioned in the consent
order.
• Failure of complying with the requirement of putting up
effluent treatment plant resulted in lapse of the consent.
Stella Silks Limited v State of Karnataka
AIR 2001 Kant 219: (2001) 1 KCC R 610
Issue:
Whether this court should intervene with the order passed by the
Board under Section 33-A directing the closure of the petitioner-
industry?
Facts
• The petitioner industry was engaged in the manufacturing and dyeing of silk fabrics which involved
discharge of contaminated water in violation of the consent order. The manufacturing unit is located
at Bangalore District.
• The petitioner's conditional consent order had come to be renewed by the second respondent-Board.
• The petitioner having not complied with various conditions that had been imposed on it by the
Board in the matter of discharging pollutants from its factory premises, particularly, discharge of
contaminated water. The petitioner, at that point of time, was running the industry without valid
consent from the State Pollution Control Board.
• The respondent-Board issued a cause show notice against the said discharge. Subsequently, it was
ordered to close down its operations.
• This petition was failed questioning the legality of the order of closure of the industry and seeking for
issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the same.
• The petitioner denied causing a pollution and contended that the order was passed without giving
them the opportunity to be heard.
• The report of the Commissioner, the inspection reports of the various officers of
the Pollution Control Board and even the petitioner’s own admissions on record,
indicate that the petitioner has been discharging the polluted water from
outside the factory premises and the report of the Commissioner appointed by
this Court clearly indicates that the polluted water outside the factory of the
petitioner was found to be used by the farmers though it was found smelling
contaminated and would cause various problems.
• When persons like the petitioner flout the various provisions of the Act and
conditions imposed thereunder only for their own private benefit, such acts
cannot be entertained and indulgence shown by this Court to save such persons
at the cost of the society at large.
• More so, in the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner has been far from
bona fide and being one of continuing to flout the orders passed by this Court
and violating its own undertakings filed before the Court and continue to run the
industry even without any enabling power or order in their favor inasmuch as on
and after 18-8-1999 there was no interim orders which enabled the petitioner to
continue the industry.
Judgment
• The Court observed that the petitioner industry, despite filing various
undertakings continued to cause pollution in violation on the
conditions imposed upon it. It had no intention of complying with the
said undertakings and was only using it as a device to buy more time.
• Since the petitioner was found to be guilty of violating the various
conditions of the consent order, the order of its closure was held to
be valid.
• In view of the mala fide conduct of the petitioner-industry, the order
directing its closure of petitioner-industry was upheld.
Judgment
“However, it is the total inaction and complicity of the second respondent-Board
that has enabled the petitioner not only to continue to flout the orders, but also
continue to cause pollution. The Pollution Control Board which is expected to
protect the interests of the society in the matter of causing of pollution, has
exhibited total lack of sensitivity, inaction and the conduct of the Board amounts
to one of total in competency if not irresponsibility. The respondent-Board should
act as an authority to prevent pollution and not promote pollution. It is high time
that the Board started functioning in the manner as is expected of it under the
various provisions of the Pollution Control enactments. I am constrained to make
these remarks having regard to the lukewarm manner in which the Board has
responded to the Court orders and in assisting this Court.”
https://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=B1SdFjna7zQ
• Air pollution: the contamination of atmosphere by gaseous, liquid or
solid wastes or derivatives that are capable of jeopardizing human
health and growth of plants and animals, affect materials, lessen
visibility , or generate undesirable odors.
Statutory Law related to Air Pollution
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• Its aim is the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution
through the establishment of bodies (Boards).
• Providing discretion to each State to designate particular areas as “air
pollution control areas”.
• Empowering the magistrate to restrain an air polluter from
discharging emissions.
• Empowering the general public to ask the Board to provide them with
emissions data in case they decide to sue to enforce the Act.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• The Air Act, 1981 provides that Central Polluter Control Board, which
is constituted under Section 3 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, shall, without prejudices to the exercise and
performance of its powers, perform the functions of the Central
Board for the Prevention and Control of air pollution in the Union
Territories.
• In order to accomplish this, the CPCB is empowered to delegate its
functions and powers to any person or body of person.
Functions of the Central Pollution Control Boards
• Advising the Central Government on any matter relating to the improvement of quality
air and the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution.
• Planning and causing to be executed a nation-wide programs
• Coordinating activities of SPCBs and resolving disputes among them.
• Providing technical assistance and guidance to state boards.
• Planning and organizing training of persons engaged in programs.
• Organizing comprehensive programs through mass media.
• Publishing technical and statistical data and disseminating information, and preparing
manuals, codes or guides laying down standards for the quality of air.
• Collecting and disseminating information in respect of matters relating to air pollution
and establishing or recognizing a laboratory or laboratories to enable the Central Board
to perform its functions.
Function of the Central Pollution Control Boards
Powers of the CPCB
• Every state Board shall be bound by such directions in writing as given
by the CPCB.
• CPCB is empowered to perform any functions of the SPCB, when it
has defaulted in complying with the directions of the CPCB and non-
compliance is resulting in grave emergency.
Function of State Pollution Control Boards
• Planning comprehensive programs.
• Advising State Government on any matter concerning the prevention, control or
abatement of air pollution.
• Collecting and disseminating information relating to air pollution.
• Inspecting, at all reasonable time, any control equipment, industrial plant or
manufacturing process.
• Inspecting air pollution control area at such intervals as it may thing necessary and
assess the quality of air therein.
• Laying down, in consultation with CPCB an having regard to the standards for the quality
of air laid down by the CPCB, the standards for the atmosphere from industrial plants and
automobiles or for the discharge of any air pollutant into the atmosphere.
• Advising the state Government with respect to the suitability of any premises or location
for carrying on any industry which is likely to cause air pollution.
Power to grant consent to establish or operate certain industrial plants.
No person shall, without the prior consent of the SPCB, establish or
operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area.
The application for consent shall be made in the prescribed form,
following by the inquiry based on procedure as may be prescribed.
Within a period of four months after the receipt of the application for
consent, the SPCB shall grant consent by order in writing and the
applicant has to comply with the required conditions.
If the SPCB is of the opinion that all or any of the conditions referred
require variation, the SPCB shall after giving an opportunity or being
heard to the applicant, vary all or any of such conditions and
thereupon such applicant shall be bound to comply with the conditions
so varied.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Taj Trapezium case)
AIR 1997 SC 734
Issue:
What steps are required to be taken to prevent the damage to the Taj
Mahal from air pollution?
• Kuldip Singh, J: Taj Mahal—The Taj—is the ‘King Emperor’ amongst the World
Wonders. The Taj is the final achievement and acme of the Moghul Art. It
represents the most refined aesthetic values. It is a fantasy-like grandeur. It is the
perfect culmination and artistic interplay of the architects’ skill and the jewellers’
inspiration. The marble inlay walls of the Taj are amongst the most outstanding
examples of decorative workmanship. The elegant symmetry of its exterior and
the aerial grace of its domes and minarets impress the beholder in a manner
never to be forgotten. It stands out as one of the most priceless national
monuments, of surprising beauty and worth, a glorious tribute to man’s
achievement in architecture and engineering. . . .
Facts:
• This writ petition was filed regarding relocation of industries from Taj
Trapezium to prevent damage to the Taj from air pollution.
• The petitioners has contended that various industries around Taj are
responsible for the pollution and consequent damage to the Taj Mahal.
• The Sulphur dioxide emitted by the nearby refinery and the industries
when combined with oxygen forms sulphuric acid, which has a
corroding effect on the white marble of the Taj. He has sought
appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to take immediate
steps to stop air pollution in the TTZ and save the Taj Mahal.
• The Board filed affidavit dated 5-8-1993 wherein it is stated that public notice
was published in two local newspapers of Agra on 17-5-1993 and two national
newspapers on 18-5-1993 calling upon the industries to file their replies during
the extended time.
• The affidavit states that all the listed industries were polluting industries and
507 out of them had not even installed any air pollution control device.
• The 212 industries who did not respond to the notice and failed to take any step
towards installing the pollution control devices were closed by the order dated
27-8-1993 with immediate effect.
• The old concept that development and ecology cannot go together
is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. The
development of industry is essential for the economy of the country,
but at the same time the environment and the ecosystem have to be
protected. The pollution created as a consequence of development
must be commensurate with the carrying capacity of our
ecosystems.
• Various orders passed by this Court from time to time ... clearly indicate that the
relocation of the industries from TTZ is to be resorted to only if the Natural Gas
which has been brought at the doorstep of TTZ is not acceptable/available by/to
the industries as a substitute for coke/coal.
• Before us . . . learned counsel for the industries have clearly stated that all the
industries would accept gas as an industrial fuel. The industries operating in TTZ
which are given gas connections to run the industries need not relocate. The
whole purpose is to stop air pollution by banishing coke/coal from TTZ. . . .
Judgment
• After examining various reports on the said issue, the court concluded
that the industries in the TTZ were active contributors to the air
pollution in the said area and therefore responsible for damaging Taj
Mahal.
• Adhering to the concept of sustainable development, the court
directed that the polluting industries should change-over to natural
gas as an industrial fuel instead of coke/coal.
• However, the industries were not able to make the change were
asked to relocate.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India
AIR 2002 SC 1696
Issue:
Whether the non-CNG buses should be phased out completely to
control vehicular pollution?
Facts
• The Motor Vehicles case was filed by M C Mehta in 1985. The petition originally filed sought
directions to close hazardous industries located in the densely populated areas in Delhi .
However, most of the orders sought in the petition relate to vehicular pollution.
• In early 1998, the case took an abrupt turn with the Supreme Court welcoming the Central
Government’s proposal to constitute the Environment Pollution (Protection and Control)
Authority for the National Capital Region (EPCA).
Facts
• On 14 November 1990, the MoEF acknowledged on affidavit that air pollution in Delhi was
chiefly caused by vehicular emissions.
• The court directed the city administration to place before it a complete list of prosecutions
launched against defaulting vehicles and noted that heavy vehicles such as buses and trucks
were the main contributing factor to pollution and ought to receive more attention from the
authorities.
• The court directed the Union Government to set up a high-level committee (Bhure Lal
Committee) to make an assessment of the technologies available for vehicular pollution
control in the world; their availability in India; to look for low-cost alternatives; to make
specific recommendations.
• Shortly after the Supreme Court endorsed the Central Government’s decision to set up the
EPCA, there was little progress: “We are not satisfied with the performance of the
concerned authorities in tackling the acute problem of vehicular pollution and traffic
regulations in Delhi. Environmental protection appears to have taken a back seat.”
Facts
• The EPCA directed the phasing out of non-CNG buses.
• All commercial vehicles including taxis which were 15 years old were ordered off the road by 2
October 1998. The court also endorsed a time frame fixed by EPCA for eliminating leaded petrol;
converting autorickshaws, taxis and buses to clean fuels; reducing the age of the commercial fleet
and strengthening the clean-fuel distribution network.
• The court required all private vehicles registered after 1 June 1999 to conform to Euro I norms
and those registered after 1 April 2000 to meet the Euro II norms. Diesel taxis were prohibited in
NCR unless they conformed to Euro II norms.
• In April 2002, the Union Government applied to the Supreme Court requesting a variation of
previous court directions regarding converting the public transport fleet of diesel buses into CNG
vehicles .
• The government applied a three-pronged strategy: first, it tried to discredit CNG as a proper fuel.
Second, it claimed that there was a shortage of CNG and finally, that the deadlines prescribed by
the court needed to be extended since there was a delay in setting up adequate dispensing
stations.
• If there is a short supply of an essential commodity, then the priority must be of public health,
as opposed to the health of the balance sheet of a private company.
• The statistics show that the continuing air pollution is having a more devastating effect on the
people, than what was caused by the Bhopal gas tragedy. Here, in the case of CNG, the shoe is on
the other foot because the Government is not facilitating measures for clean air and water
including the supply of CNG or any other clean unadulterated fuel.
Judgment
• The court held that the government had violated the precautionary
principle since it failed to control vehicular pollution, the major
source of air pollution thereby leading to an increase in respiratory
diseases. It also examined the issues relating to adverse health effects
of diesel exhaust particles and adulteration of petroleum products in
Delhi, thereby favoring the reduction in consumption of diesel.
• The court finally directed the Union Government to phase out non-
CNG buses in not more than 7-8 months and to give priority to
transport sector over industries with regard to allocation of CNG.
Judgment
• Directions are, therefore, to be issued regarding the lifting of 1500 buses plus
phasing out of 800 buses per month. The permits to be given are to be time-
bound and the continued operation of the diesel buses till they are replaced
would require them to pay Rs 500 per bus per day for 30 days of operation and
thereafter Rs 1000 per day and the same is to be deposited with the Director of
Transport, Delhi. . . .
Murli S. Deora v Union of India
AIR 2002 SC 40
Issue:
Whether smoking in public places should be banned?
Facts:
• This was a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against
smoking in public places.
• The petitioners contended that smoking was responsible for various
diseases and air pollution thereby necessitating the need for
regulation. It was also stated that states such as Rajasthan and Delhi
already had a law in place with respect to the latter. Further, it was
not fair on a non-smoker to be subjected to passive smoking.
Therefore, it was submitted that till the statutory provisions came into
effect, the Court should order a ban on public smoking.
Judgment:
• Taking into consideration the submission, the court stated that the nexus between
smoking and grave health hazards was clearly laid down in the statement of objects
and reasons of the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production. Supply and Distribution) Act,
1975, the cigarettes and Other Tabacco Products Bill, 2002, and various research
reports carried out all over the world.
• The Court observed that smoking in public places indirectly deprived the non-
smokers of their right to life guaranteed under article 21.
• In view if the same, the court directed the Union of India, the State Governments, and
the Union Territories to ban public smoking in auditoriums, hospital buildings,
health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, court buildings, public offices,
and public conveyance such as railways. A compliance report was directed to be
submitted within five weeks.
• The Water Act, 1974  State and Central Pollution Control Boards
• The Environmental Act, 1986  it vests power to the Central Government and
identifies the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as the apex
policy making body in the field of environment protection.
• The MoEFCC acts through the CPCB and the SPCBs.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1986
•It provides the Central Government the power to frame rules on various aspects of
environmental protection, especially those relating to management of various types of
wastes.
Section 2(a)
•Environment: Water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exist among and
between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-
organism and property.
•Environmental pollution: the presence in the environment of any environmental
pollutant such as any solid, liquid and gaseous substance present in such concentration
as may be, or lend to be, injurious to environment.
•Handling: any substance to mean the manufacture, processing, treatment, package,
store transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer
or the like of such substance.
•Hazardous substances: any substance or preparation which, by reason of its
chemical or physic-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to
human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the
environment.
•Occupier: any factory or premises, measn a person who has control over the
affairs of the factory or the premises and includes, in relation to any substance, the
person in possession of the substance.
•Role of the Central Government / Section 3
The Central Government is empowered to take all such measures which are necessary or expedient for the
purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating
environmental pollution under the EPA.
•Co-ordination of actions by the State Governments, officers and other authorities.

•Planning and execution of a nation-wide programs.
 National Clean Air Program (NCAP):Launched in 2019, NCAP aims to address air quality issues in urban areas
across India. It sets specific targets to reduce air pollution and improve air quality monitoring and
management.
 Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Campaign):Launched in 2014, this campaign focuses on improving
sanitation and cleanliness in urban and rural areas. It includes initiatives to build toilets, manage waste, and
promote hygiene.
 National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA): NMSA, initiated in 2010, promotes sustainable
agricultural practices to enhance crop productivity while minimizing the environmental impact. It includes
programs on soil health management, water use efficiency, and organic farming.
•Laying down standards for the quality of environment and emission or discharge of environmental pollutants
from various sources whatsoever.
•Restriction of areas for industrial operation subject to certain safeguards.
•Laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents causing environmental pollution and
remedial measures for such accidents.
•Laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances.
•Examination of manufacturing processes, materials and substances which are likely to cause environmental
pollution.
•Carrying out and sponsoring investigations and research relating to problems of environmental pollution.
•Establishment or recognition of environmental laboratories and institutes.
•Collection and dissemination of information in respect of matters relating to environmental pollution and
preparation of manuals, codes or guides relating to the prevention, control and abatement of environmental
pollution.
Other powers under EPA
*Section 4. Power to appoint officer for the purpose of entrusting on them such of
the powers and functions prescribed under the EPA.
*Section 5. Power to issue directions for the compliance of the provision of the
Environment Protection Act.
- These include power to issue directions for closure, prohibition or regulation of
any industry, operation or process.
- This also include the power to stop or regulate the supply of electricity or water or
any other service.
*Section 6. Power to make rules relating with:
•Standards of quality of air, water or soil for various areas and purposes,
•Maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants
for different areas,
•Procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances,
•Prohibition and restrictions for the handling of hazardous substances in different
areas,
•Prohibition and restriction on the location of industries and the carrying on of
processes and operations in different areas and
•Procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents.
*Section 10. Power to enter and search for the purpose of:
•Performing any of its functions.

•Determining whether the provision of the EPA Act, the EP rules are any notice,
order, direction made under this Act has been complied with.
•For the purpose of examining and testing any equipment, industrial plant, record,
register, document or any other material object or for conducting a search of any
building and for seizing any such equipment, industrial plant, record, register,
document or any other material object.
(It shall be made only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973)
*Section 11. Power to take examples of air, water, soil or other substance from any
factory, premises or other place for the purpose of analysis.
Procedure for taking samples. The office empowered to take samples shall:
•Serve a notice of his intention to collect samples and to analyze it in the prescribed
form on the occupier or his agent or person in charge of the place.
•Collect the sample for analysis in the presence of the occupier or his agent or person
in charge of the place.
•Cause the samples to be placed in a container which shall be marked and sealed and
shall also be signed both by the person taking the sample and the occupier or his
agent or person in charge of the place.
•Send the container without delay to the laboratory established or recognized by the
Central Government.
Duties imposed on individuals
•Section 7. Persons who are carrying on any industry, operation or processes shall
not discharge or emit any environmental pollutants in excess of standards that are
prescribed by the Central Government.
•Section 8. Persons who are handling with hazardous substances shall comply with
the procedural safeguards prescribed by the Central Government.
•Section 9. Duty to inform and render assistance for the remedial measures taken
to prevent the environmental pollution
Punishments
•Section 15. If any person fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provision
of the act or rules or orders or directions shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 5 years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh
or with both
•In spite of the punishment, if the failure or contravention continues, then the
person may be imposed an additional fine which may extend to Rs. 5000 for every
day during which this continues.
•If the failure or contravention continues beyond a period of one year after the day
of conviction, then the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term,
which may extend to 7 years.
Offences by Company and Government Departments
•Section 16. if a company has committed any offence under this Act, then every
person who was directly in charge of the company for the conduct of the business
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be punished
accordingly.
However if the person liable proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence, he will not be made liable for any punishment under the Act.
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2016
Rules are meant to distinguish between hazardous waste and other wastes. In order to
periodized prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, recovery, co-processing and safe
disposal.
Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016
E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016

Electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part discarded as waste by the
consumer or bulk consumer as well as reject for manufacturing, refurbishment and
repair processes.
Collection is now exclusively producer’s responsibility, which can set up collection
center or point or even can arrange buy back mechanism for such collection.
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
•Includes solid or semi-solid domestic waste, sanitary waste, commercial waste,
institutional waste, catering and market waste and other non residential wastes,
streets sweepings, silt removed or collected from the surface drains, horticulture
waste, bio-medical waste and e-waste, battery waste, radio-active waste generated
in the area under the local authorities and other entities mentioned.
•No person would be hereafter allowed to throw, burn or bury the solid waste
generated by him, on streets, open public spaces outside his premises, or in the
drain, or water bodies.
•All hotels and restaurants should segregate biodegradable waste and set up a
system of collection or follow the system of collection set up by local body to
ensure that such waste food is utilized for composting.
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
•Every street vendor should keep suitable container for storage of waste
generated during the curse of his activity such as food waste, disposable plates,
cups, cans, wrappers, coconut shells. Leftover food, vegetables, fruits, etc. and
deposit such waste at waste storage depot or container or vehicle notified by the
local authority.
•All manufacturers of disposable products such as tin, glass, plastic packaging, or
brand owner who introduce such products in the market should put in place a
system to collect back the packaging waste generated dur to their production.
•All such manufacturers, brand owners or marketing companies should educate
the masses for wrapping and disposal of their products.
Construction and Demolition Waste Management, 2016
It would be the responsibility of the large generators to segregate the waste into
four streams such as concrete, soil, steel, wood and plastics, bricks and mortar
and they would pay relevant charges for collection, transportation, processing and
disposal as notified by the concerned authorities.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

Every owner shall take out before he starts handling any hazardous substance, one
or more insurance policies providing for contracts of insurance whereby he is
insured against liability to give relief under to the persons affected by accidents
occurring while handling any hazardous substances.
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
The use of loudspeakers and public address systems were restricted
during night between 10.00pm and 6.00am, except for the closed
auditorium, banquet hall, etc.
Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016

Plastic waste minimization, source segregation, recycling, involving
waste pickers, recyclers and waste processors in collection of plastic
waste fraction either from households or any other source of its
generation.
Environmental Impact Assessment
• The EIA was codified for the first time in the United States’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 wherein the statute used this
concept and called for an interdisciplinary evaluation of the potential
environmental effects of all major federally funded projects.
• The specific purpose of the assessment is to provide decision makers
with information allowing them to introduce environmental
protection considerations in the decision making process leading to
the approval, rejection or modification of the project, plan or activity
under examination.
They are generally classified into three types:
1.Environmental impact assessment: primarily concerned with
potential impact on local and regional environment.
2.Social Impact Assessment: primarily concerned with potential impact
on local communities, especially on their society, livelihoods and
culture.
3.Health Impact Assessment: primarily concerned with potential
impact on human helath (direct or indirect)
The EIA Notification, 2006, was created by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of
India.
It was promulgated under the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the central government to
take measures to protect and improve the quality of the environment.
It is a prerequisite for obtaining environmental clearance.
Environmental Clearance: The notification categorizes various
development projects and activities into different categories (A, B1, and
B2) based on their potential environmental impacts.
Projects falling under Category A require mandatory environmental
clearance from the Ministry-Central Government, while those under
Category B need clearance from the State-level authorities.
Stages
The authority's decision regarding the grant or denial of environmental
clearance is based on the EIA report, recommendations of the Expert
Appraisal Committee, and often takes into account public input
received during public hearings.
1. Screening
2. Scoping
3. Public consultation
4. Appraisal
1. Screening
The project proponent submits a project proposal to the relevant regulatory
authority who categorizes the project as Category A or Category B based on
its potential environmental impact’’.
2. Scoping
A draft scoping report is prepared, which outlines the scope of the EIA study,
including the specific environmental aspects that will be assessed. The study
conducted, involving experts, stakeholders, and public consultations/ base data
collection.
An impact assessment report is produced, documenting the anticipated
environmental impacts, both positive and negative.
3. Public Hearing
They are mandatory for Category A projects and certain Category B projects.
They should be scheduled after the completion of the draft EIA report but
before the final EIA report is submitted to the regulatory authority.
The draft report should be available to the public, including local
communities, at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the public
hearing. In local languages and should include a summary in non-technical
language.
It must be held at a convenient location and time for the local community
and stakeholders.
3. Public Hearing
The project proponent is responsible for organizing the public hearing.
The public hearing should be conducted by an independent panel or
authority, often referred to as the State Pollution Control Board or
state Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The panel should
include experts in various relevant fields.
The public hearing should have a structures agenda, which also
respond to questions and concerns raised during the hearing.
3. Public Hearing
The views, concerns, and objections raised during the public hearing
should be recorded, analyzed, and documented in a separate report.
This report should be submitted along with the final EIA report to the
regulatory authority.
The project proponent is expected to address and incorporate relevant
concerns and suggestions from the public into the final EIA report and
the proposed project design, whenever possible and feasible.
4. Appraisal
Appraisal means the detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal
Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee of the
application and other documents like the Final EIA report, outcome of
the public consultations including public hearing proceedings,
submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority concerned for
grant of environmental clearance.
They shall make categorical recommendations to the regulatory
authority concerned either for grant of prior environmental clearance
on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for
prior environmental clearance, together with reasons for the same.
Consulting firms
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for a proposed
project must be prepared by qualified and accredited Environmental
Consultants or Environmental Impact Assessment Consultants (EIACs).
These consultants are typically independent professionals or consulting
firms with expertise in environmental science, engineering, and related
fields.
The “Validity of Environmental Clearance” is meant the period from
which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory
authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted.
The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall
be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley projects,
project life as estimated by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level
Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for
mining projects and five years in the case of all other projects and
activities.
It shall be mandatory for the project management to submit half-
yearly compliance reports in respect of the stipulated prior
environmental clearance terms and conditions in hard and soft copies
to the regulatory authority concerned, on 1st June and 1st December
of each calendar year.
All such compliance reports submitted by the project management
shall be public documents.
A prior environmental clearance granted for a specific project or
activity to an applicant may be transferred during its validity to
another legal person entitled to undertake the project or activity on
application by the transferor, or by the transferee with a written “no
objection” by the transferor, to, and by the regulatory authority
concerned, on the same terms and conditions under which the prior
environmental clearance was initially granted, and for the same
validity period.
No reference to the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert
Appraisal Committee concerned is necessary in such cases
• http://www.environmentwb.gov.in/pdf/EIA%20Notification,%202006.
pdf
Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India
Issue
Does the failure to make the
Executive Summary available less
than 30 days before the public
hearing vitiates the environment
clearance?
Facts
• In the 1980s the leases were operated by Respondent No.3 for iron,
manganese and ferro manganese. The mines are stated to have been
worked till 1994.
• With the increase in the demand for iron ore from countries like China,
South Korea and Japan, there was renewed interest in re-starting the
mining operations.
• It is stated that on 13th January 2006 a Combined Mining Scheme along
with a Progressive Mine Closure Plan was approved by the Government
of Goa.
• On 17 th April 2006 the Respondent No.2 applied for renewal of the
lease which was due on 22nd November 2007.
Facts
• Order dated 26th July 2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF), Government of India granting Environment Clearance to M/s.
Panduranga Timblo Industries, Margao, Goa, Respondent No.3 herein for renewal
of the mining lease in respect of the Borga Iron Ore Mine.
• This order was challenged by the petitioners before the National Environmental
Appellate Authority. “The public hearing by the GSPCB was reduced to a farce
particularly when none of the objections raised at the public hearing were dealt
with by the EAC.”
• The National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA), New Delhi dismissing
the Appeal filed by the Appellant and affirmed the said order of the MoEF
granting environmental clearance through an order dated 14th October 2008.
• The challenge in this writ petition is to an Order dated 14th October 2008.
• In terms of the said EIA Notification, Environmental Clearance was to
be obtained not only for new projects but for expansion and
modernization of an existing project as well.
• For mines over a smaller area and which fell in category “B” of
Schedule, approval was to be obtained from the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority.
• The requirement of a fair public hearing
The scope of the powers of judicial review of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision
making process and not so much the decision itself. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?
2. committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached
or,
5. abused its powers
Issues:
• The first concerns the requirement of making available the Executive
Summary at least 30 days prior to the date of the public hearing and
whether the failure to do so in the present case vitiates the
environment clearance.
• The second issue reflects the legal requirement of compliance with
the principles of natural justice.
• The third issue reflects the aspect of procedural fairness and the
requirement of the administrative decision-making body to furnish
reasons for its decision.
• It is not in dispute that the Executive Summary was received by the
Gram Panchayat of Village Rivona only on 22nd January 2007 i.e. only
nine days prior to the date of public hearing which was scheduled on
31st January 2007.
• Not a single application nor a single member of the public was in
favour of restarting of the mine due to grave environmental and social
damage
• We therefore hold that in the context of the EIA Notification dated
14th September 2006 and the mandatory requirement of holding
public hearings to invite objections it is the duty of the EAC, to whom
the task of evaluating such objections has been delegated, to indicate
in its decision the fact that such objections, and the response
thereto of the project proponent, were considered and the reasons
why any or all of such objections were accepted or negatived. The
failure to give such reasons would render the decision vulnerable to
attack on the ground of being vitiated due to non-application of mind
to relevant materials and therefore arbitrary.
• 3.1 The Member Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC shall
finalize the date, time and exact venue for the conduct of public hearing
within 7 (seven) days of the date of receipt of the draft Environmental
Impact Assessment report from the project proponent and advertise
the same in one major National Daily and one Regional Daily. A
minimum notice period of 30 (thirty) days shall be provided to the
public for furnishing their responses;
“Requirement of the participation of those affected in a fully informed

and effective manner. The opportunity to participate and voice an
opinion on the project has to be a meaningful one”
• The NEAA held that in terms of para 2.4 of the Appendix IV to the EIA notification
dated 14th September 2006 although there was an obligation on the part of State
Pollution Control Board to give publicity about the project within the State and
make available the Summary of the Draft EIA report for inspection, there was no
mandatory time frame prescribed for making the said documents available. The
only time frame was that there should be minimum notice of 30 days of the
public hearing which was required to be advertised in one national newspaper
(daily) and one regional newspaper. It was accordingly held by making the
Executive Summary available only nine days prior to the date of public hearing,
there was no violation of EIA notification dated 14 th September 2006 passed by
the Respondent No.3.
• the MoEF has constituted the EAC (Mines) as a twelve member body
for evaluating the Project proposal as well as the EIA Report and
advise the government on whether environmental clearance should
be granted.
• The requirement of an administrative decision making body to give
reasons has been viewed as an essential concomitant of acting fairly.
The decision must reflect the consideration of the materials available
before the decision maker and the opinion formed on such material.
• As regards the EAC (Mines) it is surprising that the 12 member EAC was chaired
by a person who happened to be Director of four mining companies. It matters
little that the said four mining companies were not in Goa. Appointing a person
who has a direct interest in the promotion of the mining industry as
Chairperson of the EAC (Mines) is in our view an unhealthy practice that will rob
the EAC of its credibility since there is an obvious and direct conflict of interest.
• Given the general poor level of enforcement, it is important for the MoEF to
review its practice of granting such "conditional" clearances without specifying
which of the conditions have to be mandatorily complied with before mining can
commence.
Judgment
Given the spirit of the EIA notification dated 14th September 2006 this
conclusion of the NEAA, in our view, is totally unacceptable. The decision
of the NEAA, if allowed to stand, will reduce every public hearing to a farce.
1. Adequate publicity then the notices would have to be repeated and
spread over a period of ten days so that as many people as possible are
made aware of such public hearing.
2. Executive Summary which is required to be commented by the
participants of the public hearing has to be made available at least 30
days prior to the date of the public hearing.
3. There is no question of scheduling several hearings relating to different
projects at the same date, time and venue.
Samarth Trust vs Union of India
2010
Issue
Whether the public hearing conducted in
the present case conformed to the nature,
scope, and methodology under the
notification dated 14th September 2006
issued by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (for short MOEF)?
Facts
• To take advantage of the incentives offered by the Office Memorandum dated 7th January 2003,
Aqua applied to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on 23rd October 2007 for a
grant of environmental clearance for setting up a unit for the manufacture of asbestos cement
products and fiber reinforced plastic products, in Village Akbarpur Urd, Tehsil Laksar, District
Haridwar in Uttarakhand.
• The asbestos based project that we are concerned with requires prior environmental clearance
from the Central Government.
• During the public hearing a few protestors arrived with banners and shouting slogans against
the project while the public hearing was going on. It also showed an exchange of words between
the protestors and the police at the venue. Thereafter, there was sudden violence between the
protestors, the police and the local populace at the public hearing.
A public consultation in terms of the Notification 2006 consists of two parts. They are: -
(a) A public hearing at the site or in its close proximity - district wise, to be carried out for
ascertaining the concerns of local affected persons; and
(b) Obtaining responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the
environmental aspects of the project or activity.
Appendix IV to the Notification 2006 provides the procedure for conducting a public hearing:
a. Documentation:
1. Preparation by the project proponent of a draft EIA Report including a Summary EIA Report in
English as well as in the local language.
2 . Copies of these documents are required to be furnished to the District Magistrate, the Zila
Parishad or the Municipal Corporation, District Industries Office and the concerned Regional Office
of the MOEF.
b. Publicity:
1 . The draft EIA Report shall be widely publicized so that interested persons may send their
comments to the concerned Regulatory Authority.
2. The summary of the draft EIA Report shall be displayed by the MOEF on its website.
c. Notice:
A notice of the public hearing is required to be given in a major national daily and one regional
vernacular daily at least 30 days in advance of the date of the public hearing.
d. Supervision:
1 . The public hearing shall be supervised and presided over by the District Magistrate or his
representative not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate. The Presiding Officer is
required to be assisted by a representative of the State Pollution Control Board.
2 . The entire proceedings of the public hearing are required to be video- graphed.
3. The video recording of the public hearing should be submitted.
4. The proceedings at the public hearing do not require a quorum for attendance but the presence
of all those at the venue is required to be noted.
e. Actual hearing:
1 . A representative of the project proponent shall initiate the proceedings by a presentation on the project and the summary
EIA Report.
2. The persons present at the venue must be granted an opportunity to seek information or clarifications on the project from
the project proponent.
3 . A summary of the views and concerns expressed in the public hearing are required to be read over to the audience and
explained in the vernacular language.
f. Post public hearing:
1 . The agreed Minutes of the public hearing shall be prepared and signed by the District Magistrate or his representative on
the same day and forwarded to the State Pollution Control Board. A statement of issues raised by the public (both written and
oral) and the comments of the project proponent are required to be annexed to the proceedings.
2. The statement of issues raised by the public and the comments of the applicant are required to be conspicuously displayed
in the office of the Panchayat
g. Miscellaneous:
1. The public hearing is required to be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a request from the
project proponent.
2 . The papers relating to the public hearing shall be sent to the concerned Regulatory Authority within 8 days of completion of
the public hearing.
• A public hearing is a form of participatory justice giving a voice to the voiceless
(particularly to those who have no immediate access to courts) and a place and
occasion to them to express their views with regard to a project.
• Since a public hearing affects the rights of the parties, it must be conducted in a
formal or at least in a semi-formal manner and the video-recording as well as
the Minutes of the proceedings must be faithful to what has actually transpired
so that the views of the participants are known.
• The protests sent by various NGOs including Samarth resulted in the MOEF
setting up a Committee to look into some issues and submit a detailed report,
inter alia, on the public hearing, the report submitted by the State Pollution
Control Board and the video recording of the public hearing itself.
• On the basis of the material placed before us, we have no hesitation in
concluding that all the reports clearly bring out that despite an attempt to
disrupt the public hearing, it was conducted and concluded after giving an
opportunity of hearing to all those who wanted to express their views. The only
person who was not allowed to express his view (and there is serious doubt
about this) was Shri Sanjay Chopra who led a small group of about 10-15 persons.
• Given the fact that the group was shouting slogans and entered the venue of the
public hearing, not when it started but while it was in progress, it does appear
that their prime motive was not to meaningfully participate in the public
hearing but to disrupt it. That they were not able to do so is unfortunate for
them.
Stages
The authority's decision regarding the grant or denial of environmental
clearance is based on the EIA report, recommendations of the Expert
Appraisal Committee, and often takes into account public input
received during public hearings.
1. Screening
2. Scoping
3. Public consultation
4. Appraisal
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India and Ors
(Goa Airport Case)
Facts
• On 1 May 2000, the Union Government approved setting up a greenfield international airport
at Mopa.
• In March 2011, the State Government, as project proponent, commenced the process for
securing an EC under the EIA notification of 2006. On 1 June 2011, MoEF issued Terms of
Reference (ToR) for preparing the EIA report. The ToR, initially valid for two years, was periodically
extended.
• A public hearing was conducted at the project site on 1 February 2015 and, on 20 May 2015, the
state submitted a final EIA report.
• On 28 October 2015, the MoEF granted an EC.
• Meanwhile, in October 2014 the state government floated a tender to develop the project on a
public private partnership (PPP) basis. With the state receiving a revenue share of 36.99% over
the life of the 40-year concession. The concessionaire was granted three years from 4 September
2017 to commission the first phase of the airport.
Facts
• The EC was challenged before the NGT by the Federation of Rainbow Warriors and
Hanuman Aroskar. On 21 August 2018, the NGT rejected the challenge, upholding the
EC and imposing certain additional conditions to safeguard the environment.
• The appellants raised several issues touching on the integrity of the process. They
complained that the project proponent concealed vital facts; the EIA report was flawed
since essential studies were not carried out; the public hearing process was negated
by a failure to consider the objections; the EAC had abdicated its duty to carefully
examine the issues; and finally that the NGT had failed to conduct a merits review.
• After examining the EIA process under the 2006 notification, the Supreme Court found
that the authorities had indeed committed procedural as well as substantive violations.
Refraining from striking down the EC, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to
the Environmental Assessment Committee or Environmental Appraisal Committee
(EAC) for a relook. It suspended the EC until the EAC completed a fresh exercise
Mopa 1
• The Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) and the SEAC are charged with evaluating the information
submitted by the applicant in Form 1/Form 1A and preparing comprehensive ToR which guide the
preparation of the EIA reports.
• The project proponent is bound by the highest duty of transparency and rectitude in making the
disclosures in Form 1. . . .
• We cannot gloss over the patent and abject failure of the State of Goa as the project proponent in failing to
disclose wet lands, water sources, water bodies, biospheres, mountains and forests within an aerial distance
of 15 kilometres as required by Form 1.
• The ToR guide the preparation of the EIA report. A failure to disclose information in Form 1 impairs the
functioning of the EAC in the preparation of the ToR and in consequence, leads to preparation of a deficient
EIA report. . .
• The EIA report fails to meet a classical requirement of administrative law: to take into account a relevant
consideration namely, that within the study area which has to be considered, there is the presence of
Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs).
Mopa 1
• The EIA report ought to have scrutinized the number of trees, their nature and longevity. Issues
such as the extent to which the trees or some of them were capable of being transplanted had to
be considered in the EIA report. The location of the trees is also significant.
• The environmental rule of law provides an essential platform underpinning the four pillars of
sustainable development—economic, social, environmental, and peace.
• The processes of decision are as crucial as the ultimate decision.
• ‘A regulatory regime for environmental governance is based on the hypothesis that all
stakeholders will act with rectitude.’
• Due to the perceived public interest and the large investment of resources, often public funds,
courts find it difficult to stall large projects even where the project proponent was ‘parsimonious
with the truth’.
Mopa 2
• The MoEF asked the Supreme Court to take on record the fresh decision of the EAC dated 23
April 2019 and urged the court to lift the embargo placed by its judgment.
• In the second round, the Supreme Court repelled the challenges advanced by the appellant with
respect to the adverse impact of the project on forests, the Western Ghats, ecologically sensitive
areas and the flora and fauna.
• We deem it appropriate to ensure the oversight of the project by a specialized body to ensure
compliance with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court.
• We direct the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to
oversee compliance with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court. The project
proponent shall bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI.
• In appeals against the NGT order, the Supreme Court delivered an elaborate judgment on 29
March 2019. By this time the project had progressed substantially: 54,676 trees were felled
between 3 September 2018 and 14 January 2019; the state had spent Rs. 240 crores for acquiring
land, widening roads and other related expenses; and the concessionaire had incurred Rs. 230
crores on developing the site. According to GMR, around 14% of the project work was complete
and 1,500 persons were working at the site to meet the deadline.
Coastal Regulation Zone
• India’s lengthy coast stretches over 7,516 kilometres, supporting numerous fishing communities
and driving the economies of coastal villages, towns and cities.
• The legislative framework for controlling marine pollution is provided by the Territorial Waters,
Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act of 1976.
• The Territorial Waters (TW) extend 12 nautical miles from the defined base line (HTL); the
Continental Shelf (CS) is the natural prolongation of India’s land territory to the outer edge of the
continental margin, or 200 nautical miles, where the continental margin does not extend up to that
distance. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends beyond the TW, over a distance of 200
nautical miles.
• The High Tile Line means the line on the land up to which the highest water line reaches during the
spring tide, as demarcated by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM)
• The Act asserts India’s sovereignty over the natural resources in the CS7 and EEZ.
• Specific provisions under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958 (MSA) govern the civil and criminal
liability regimes in respect of oil spills.
Coastal Regulation Zone, 2019
• The mainland coast is regulated by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification of 18 January
2019.
• Coastal stretches of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Lakshadweep Islands are
protected by the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) notification issued on 8 March 2019.
• The broad structure of the CRZ regime comprises: (i) defining the regulated zone; (ii) classifying
coastal areas based on ecological importance and the existing level of development; (iii)
enumerating permissible activity; (iv) listing prohibited activity; (v) prescribing limits and rules for
coastal development where permissible; (vi) preparing coastal zone management plans; and (vii)
constituting coastal zone management authorities.
• There is no special enforcement agency and the task of implementing coastal regulations
primarily falls on the municipality or the collector in rural areas.
• Development along the coast must meet the twin requirements of local town and country
planning laws as well as the overriding provisions of the CRZ Regulations.
Coastal Regulation Zone, 2019
• To regulate development activities on Indian’s coastlines (fragile coastal ecosystem).
• Classification based on their ecological and development significance:
CRZ-I (CRZ-IA most ecologically sensitive areas like mangorves, mudflats, corals and coral reefs, sand dunes,
national parks, marine parks, etc. - The intertidal zone between the LTL and HTL falls under CRZ-IB).
CRZ-II (urban and built-up areas)
CRZ-III (rural and undeveloped areas) relatively undisturbed.
CRZ-IV (islands). Territorial waters.
• No-development Zones: mangroves, coral reefs, sand dunes.
• Restrictions on specific activities such as construction, mining, and tourism.
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011
• Four zones have been marked for special considerations:
Grater Mumbai Region, Goa and Kerala (backwaters), and the
Sunderbans.
• Creation of Coastal Zone Management Plans by the states, approved
by the MOFCC.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (public hearings)
Worli Koliwada Nakhwa v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Facts
• Construction of a coastal road on the western coast of Mumbai from
Princess Street Fly over to the Worli end of the Borivali– Worli Sea-link.
• Application moved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
seeking modification of an earlier interim order seeking permission to
carry out certain work pertaining to the Mumbai Coastal Road Project.
• In the interim order dated 17.12.2019, wherein modification is sought,
the Apex Court had granted permission to build the coastal road, but
precluded the Municipal Corporation from carrying out any other
development work.
Since the CRZ clearance was for 90 hectares of land, the Court directed
that no reclamation and/or development could be carried out beyond
the area of 90 hectares until the CRZ clearance of the additional area
was received.
The petitioner was permitted to reclaim land, build the road (the
coastal road as it is described) and secure the road. However, the
petitioner was restrained from carrying on any other development
work until further orders.
Judgment
The allied development work permitted to be carried out by the Bench

was made subject to the following conditions -
• The petitioner will adhere strictly to all the conditions stipulated in the
CRZ clearance of 11 May 2017 as amended on 18 May 2021, particularly
Specific Conditions A(v) and (vi) contained in the CRZ clearance dated 11
May 2017;
• The land reclaimed should not be utilized for any residential or
commercial development /purposes, presently or at any time in the
future;
• No further land should be reclaimed for the purposes of the Coastal
Road Project without prior permission of this Court;
• "Undoubtedly, sustainable development is an important ingredient in
the protection of the environment. At this stage, prima facie, the
effort to decongest the arterial roads of a congested metropolitan city
cannot be interdicted. However, the conditions imposed in the CRZ
clearance must be scrupulously observed. This includes the
rehabilitation of the fishing community."
Samir Mehta v Union of India
MANU/GT/0104/2016
Issue
Whether the NGT Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this
case, as the incident happened around 20 nautical
miles from the coast of Mumbai, which is beyond
the territorial waters of India that extends only up
to 12 nautical miles.
Whether or not the provisions of the Merchant
shipping Act, 1958 oust the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal
Facts
• On 12.08.2011 a ship (M.V. Rak Carrier) carrying more than 60054 metric tons of
coal and also containing 290 tonnes of fuel oil and 50 tonnes of diesel sank
approximately 20 nautical miles from the coast of South Mumbai due to water
ingression in ballast tanks, which has happened due to technical faults.
• The marine oil spill over the sea has caused environmental damage to the
aquatic life and thus caused marine pollution.
• Adani enterprises has taken no action to control the pollution caused by the
spillage whatsoever.
• So, Indian Coastguard stepped in and made measures to control the damage
caused and as a result significant amount of costs were incurred by the Indian
Government.
• A petition was filed before the National Green Tribunal by Samir Mehta, an
environmentalist.
• The NGT was established in the year 2010 under the National Green
Tribunal Act of 2010 to dispose of civil cases relating to
environmental protection and conservation of forests and other
natural resources, including enforcement of any legal rights related
to the environment.
• Samir Mehta questioned the significance of environmental
jurisprudence, in relation to pollution caused by sinking of ship and oil
spillage in territorial waters, contiguous zone and the Exclusive
Economic Zone of the country and consequences and liabilities arising
therefrom.
Judgment
• The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the case because
India’s sovereignty over the natural resources extends to contiguous
zone and exclusive economic zone under Maritime Zones Act, 1976.
• Under this Act, the Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction to
preserve and protect maritime environment in the said zones and in
order to achieve this purpose, the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal
with matters relating to maritime pollution in exclusive economic
zones.
Judgment
• The Tribunal held that according to Section 71 of the Merchant Shipping Act,
1958 even though a person is not an owner of ship but he is beneficially
interested other than by way of mortgage he is liable to pay pecuniary
damages. Hence, in the present case, Adani enterprises are liable to pay
damages up to a tune of 5 crore rupees to Ministry of Shipping.
• The quantum of the owner’s liability is limited under section 352J of the MSA
where the damage occurs without fault of the owner. Conversely, limitation
does not apply where the damage is caused by negligence. Section 436 of the
MSA prescribes penalties for wrongful oil discharges into Indian coastal waters.
• The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays
Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental
right under Article 21.

Water - Air

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water - Air

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water - Air

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The following presentations offer a structured outline for the

Environmental Law course. These materials are provided for

•Co-ordination of actions by the State Governments, officers and other authorities.

•Performing any of its functions.

Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016

E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016

“Requirement of the participation of those affected in a fully informed

The allied development work permitted to be carried out by the Bench

You might also like