M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)

The Supreme Court had already dealt with the Kanpur tanneries on 22 September 1987. In this judgment it turned to the city itself, where untreated sewage from Kanpur was pouring into the Ganga. It told the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to act, and, citing the fundamental duty to protect the environment, told the Central Government to have environment lessons taught in schools.

Quick Revision

Parties

M.C. Mehta — petitioner, who appeared in person. A citizen who filed a public interest petition to protect the people who use the water of the Ganga.

Union of India and others — respondents. The Court took up the case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika (the city's municipal body), whose Executive Engineer, Jai Shanker Tewari, filed an affidavit.

Uttar Pradesh State Board — the Board set up under the Water Act, to which notice was sent. Its Scientific Officer, Dr. G.N. Misra, filed an affidavit.

Additional Solicitor General B. Datta and many other counsel — appeared for the respondents. The judgment lists their names.

Procedural History

1. M.C. Mehta filed Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
2. On 22 September 1987, the Court decided M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 463. It gave directions to the tanneries at Jajmau near Kanpur.
3. In that judgment, the Court said the case against the municipal bodies and the industries causing the pollution would be taken up at the next hearing.
4. The Court took up the municipal bodies first. It began with the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika because Kanpur is one of the biggest cities on the Ganga.
5. Notice went to the Uttar Pradesh State Board. Its Scientific Officer filed an affidavit, and the Mahapalika's Executive Engineer filed another.
6. On 12 January 1988, the Court delivered this judgment through Venkataramiah, J. and disposed of the petition as against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
7. The case against the other Mahapalikas and municipalities in Uttar Pradesh was adjourned by six months. The case against the industries was fixed for 9 February 1988.

Facts

1. M.C. Mehta filed this petition against the pollution of the river Ganga at Kanpur.
2. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika is set up under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. Its remaining provisions came into force on 1 February 1960 in Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra and Lucknow.
3. The Water Act, 1974 created Boards to prevent and control water pollution. A State Board exists in Uttar Pradesh. Many duties under these laws were carried out without adequate action.
4. Dr. G.N. Misra of the U.P. Pollution Control Board filed an affidavit on the steps taken by local bodies and the Board.
5. An inspection on 23 and 24 November 1987 found that Kanpur lies on the southern bank of the Ganga. Its population was about 20 lakhs, and it had piped water supply.
6. The city lies between the Ganga on the north and the river Pandu on the south. G.T. Road divides it into two halves.
7. In the north, most of the area has a sewerage system. Sewage and sullage (waste water) went untreated into the Ganga through 17 nalas, including the sewerage by-pass channel at Jajmau.
8. In the south, there was no sewerage system. Sewage went untreated into the Pandu through 5 nalas. The Pandu joins the Ganga near Fatehpur.
9. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not submitted any proposal for sewage treatment works to the State Board.
10. Kanpur was covered by the Ganga Action Plan. The proposals included remodelling the Jajmau sewage pumping station, nala tapping and a sewage treatment plant by U.P. Jal Nigam.
11. Kanpur Jal Sansthan proposed to clean the trunk and main sewers. A Dutch-assisted project in Jajmau planned a crash programme, an industrial sewer and a sewage treatment plant.
12. The Ganga Action Plan data showed 274.50 million litres a day of untreated sewage from Kanpur. This was the highest in Uttar Pradesh. Only Calcutta was higher, at 580.17 million litres a day.
13. The estimated water supply of Kanpur was 392.14 million litres a day, and treatment was nil.
14. The Mahapalika's Executive Engineer listed the causes of pollution:
    • About 16 nalas carried sullage, sewage, textile waste, power plant waste and tannery effluents into the river. Some had been trapped.
    • Dairies held about 80,000 cattle. Their dung and waste exceeded the sullage of over 20 lakh people and choked the sewers.
    • Night soil from unsewered areas was thrown into the nalas.
    • More than 80 tanneries in Jajmau discharged effluent into the river.
    • Most of the water supply of about 55 million gallons a day became sewage. Part of it went to sewage farms after dilution with raw Ganga water, and the rest went into the river.
    • Dhobi ghats and open defecation by economically weaker sections added to it.
15. The affidavit said several bodies had started action. They were U.P. Jal Nigam, the U.P. Water Pollution Control Board, NEERI, the Central Leather Research Institute, the Mahapalika, the Kanpur Development Authority and Kanpur Jal Sansthan.
16. Funds came from the Central Ganga Authority through the Ganga Project Directorate, the State Government, the World Bank and the Dutch Government.
17. Rs 493.63 lacs were spent between 1985 and 1987. The Central Ganga Authority's total allocation for Kanpur was Rs 3694.94 lacs. Rs 785.58 lacs were to be spent up to 1987-88.
18. Sewer cleaning in Kanpur had never been systematic or planned, except by U.P. Jal Nigam around 1970.
19. The affidavit gave six reasons for choking and malfunctioning of the sewers:
    • solids, clothes, plastics and metals were thrown into the sewers;
    • cow dung from dairies, with about 80,000 cattle, was thrown in;
    • sewers were under-sized, especially in labour colonies;
    • solid wastes and rubble (malba) from building construction were put in through manholes;
    • mechanical equipment for sewer cleaning was not available; and
    • funds for proper maintenance were short.
20. The Mahapalika asserted that the discharge of untreated effluents into the Ganga would be stopped up to 80% by March 1988.
21. The Ganges Action Plan progress report of July 1986 to January 1987 showed that Ganga pollution was highest at Kanpur. In August 1986, iron was 29.200 mg/ml against the ISI limit of 0.3. Manganese was 0.900 against the WHO drinking-water limit of 0.05.
22. The report for February to June 1987 found that the Biochemical and Chemical Oxygen Demand values were higher than the prescribed limits. Total and faecal coliform bacteria were always very high. The water was unfit for drinking, bathing and fishing.
23. The report said all nullahs should be trapped, and raw water should be treated and chlorinated. It added that the Ganga was grossly polluted at Kanpur. The Jajmau by-pass channel, Sismau, Muir Mill, Golf Club and Gupta Ghat nullahs discharged huge quantities of polluted water.
24. The report recommended diverting and treating the major nullahs, giving combined treatment to the Jajmau tanneries, and effluent treatment plants for all major polluting industries.

Issues Raised

The judgment does not frame numbered issues. The questions it decides are:

1. Could M.C. Mehta, who was not a riparian owner (a riparian owner who has suffered from river pollution can sue at common law to stop it), maintain a petition to stop the pollution of the Ganga?
2. Were the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika and the Boards under the Water Act bound by statutory duties, and who bore the major responsibility for the pollution near Kanpur?
3. What directions should the Court give to the Mahapalika, the High Courts, the licensing authorities, the police and the Central Government?
4. Should the directions extend to other Mahapalikas and municipalities along the Ganga?

Arguments Contended

The reported judgment does not set out formal arguments for each side. It records the following.

For the petitioner (M.C. Mehta)

1. He drew the Court's attention to the Ganges Action Plan progress reports. They showed that pollution of the Ganga was highest at Kanpur.
2. He drew attention to the July 1986 to January 1987 progress report, prepared by the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, which gave the iron and manganese results.
3. The judgment records that it was submitted that persons accused under the Water Act often file petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and obtain stay orders. This defeats the Board's attempt to enforce the Act. It does not name who made this submission.
4. The Court records that its attention was drawn to the practice of throwing corpses and half-burnt corpses into the Ganga. It does not say who raised it.
5. No facts of any particular stayed case were placed before the Court.

For the respondents

The respondents filed affidavits. The judgment does not record formal arguments from them.

1. The U.P. Pollution Control Board said it collected information on measures taken by local bodies and by itself. It enclosed an inspection report of 23 and 24 November 1987.
2. The Mahapalika's Executive Engineer listed the causes of the pollution and said several bodies had started action under the Ganga Action Plan.
3. The Mahapalika said it had fixed target dates to complete the works. It said untreated effluents would be stopped up to 80% by March 1988.
4. The judgment records no argument from the respondents on the petitioner's standing.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment was delivered by Venkataramiah, J. for the Bench of E.S. Venkataramiah and K.N. Singh, JJ. It has no numbered paragraphs, and no separate opinion is recorded. Every block of the judgment is covered below.

Venkataramiah, J. (for the Court)

1. Noted: by its judgment of 22 September 1987 in [1987] 4 SCC 463, the Court gave directions to the Jajmau tanneries. It then took up the municipal bodies, beginning with the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
2. Noted: the Mahapalika is set up under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. Section 3 constitutes the cities. Section 1(3) lets the State Government bring the remaining provisions into force on notified dates. By a notification of 18 January 1960 they came into force on 1 February 1960 in Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra and Lucknow. Sections 579 and 580 had earlier been brought into force by a notification of 28 September 1959.
3. Noted: Chapter V of the Adhiniyam sets out the duties and powers of the Mahapalika. Section 114 lists its obligatory duties. The Mahapalika must make reasonable and adequate provision for:
   • collecting, removing, treating and disposing of sewage, offensive matter and rubbish (clause iii);
   • managing its waterworks and building new works for a sufficient water supply (clause vii); and
   • guarding water used for human consumption from pollution and stopping polluted water from being used (clause viii).
4. Noted: the Adhiniyam has these other specific provisions.
   • Section 251 lets the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari build works or buy or lease land and equipment. He may also make arrangements for up to twenty years to receive, treat, store, disinfect or dispose of sewage.
   • Section 388 lets him give public notice to collect and dispose of excrementitious and polluted matter from privies, urinals and cess-pools. Once he does, it is his duty to take daily action. In those areas, only persons employed by or for him may work as scavengers without his written permission.
   • Section 396 makes him responsible for removing carcasses of animals dying in the city. The occupier or person in charge must report the death within three hours, or within three hours after sunrise if it happens at night. The owner or occupier pays a removal fee.
   • Section 397 lets him (the judgment's list prints it as Section 297) prohibit by public notice a crop, a manure or a method of irrigation certified as injurious to health or likely to contaminate the water supply. Compensation is payable from the Mahapalika Fund if the practice had run in ordinary husbandry for the five preceding years.
   • Section 398 lets him order the owner or occupier of land to clear vegetation that is injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood.
   • Section 405 lets him order the owner or occupier to clean, repair, cover, fill up or drain a private well, tank, reservoir, pool or excavation that is injurious to health. The owner may require him to acquire land needed for the drainage.
   • Section 407 lets him inspect, by day or night, any place where a dangerous disease is reputed or suspected, and take measures to stop its spread.
5. Noted: these provisions deal with disposal of sewage and protection of the environment in the city. Sections 7, 189 and 191 and other provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 are almost similar for smaller municipal bodies. The Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 imposes duties on water supply and sewerage systems.
6. Held: under the laws governing local bodies, the Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipal Boards are primarily responsible for cleanliness in their areas and for protecting their environment.
7. Noted: the Water Act, 1974 sets up Boards to prevent and control water pollution. Section 2 defines these terms:
   • pollution, in clause (e): contamination or alteration of water, or discharge of sewage, trade effluent or any substance into it, that creates a nuisance or harms health, uses, animals, plants or aquatic organisms;
   • sewage effluent, in clause (g): effluent from a sewerage system or sewage disposal works, including sullage from open drains;
   • sewer, in clause (gg): a conduit, pipe or channel, open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent;
   • stream, in clause (j): includes a river, a water course, inland water, sub-terranean waters, and sea or tidal waters as notified; and
   • trade effluent, in clause (k): any liquid, gaseous or solid substance discharged from premises used for a trade or industry, other than domestic sewage.
8. Noted: Section 3 of the Water Act constitutes the Central Board. Section 4 constitutes the State Boards. A State Board exists in Uttar Pradesh. Section 16 gives the functions of the Central Board, and section 17 those of the State Board.
9. Noted: the Central Board's functions are mainly advisory and supervisory. It advises the Central Government and co-ordinates the State Boards. It gives technical help, and carries out and sponsors research on water pollution.
10. Noted: the State Board's functions are wider. Besides advising the State Government, it must:
    • plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells, and secure its execution;
    • collect and spread information, and encourage and take part in investigation and research;
    • inspect sewage and trade effluents and treatment works and plants;
    • review plans and data for treatment and disposal systems, including for the grant of consent;
    • evolve economical and reliable treatment methods, having regard to soil, climate and water resources and to flow characteristics that make even minimum dilution impossible; and
    • lay down standards for treated effluents entering a stream, taking into account minimum fair weather dilution and the tolerance limits of the stream.
11. Noted: the State Board also has executive powers. Sections 20, 21 and 23 let it obtain information, take and analyse samples, and enter and inspect. Section 24 forbids using a stream or well to dispose of polluting matter. Section 32 allows emergency measures. Under section 33, the Board may apply to a Magistrate of the first class, or a Presidency Magistrate, to restrain a person likely to pollute a stream or well.
12. Noted: section 17 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides that where a Government Department commits an offence under that Act, the Head of the Department is deemed guilty and liable to punishment.
13. Noted: Parliament and the State Legislature enacted these laws, but many provisions "have just remained on paper" without adequate action. This is unfortunate.
14. Noted: the affidavit of Dr. G.N. Misra enclosed the inspection report of 23 and 24 November 1987 by an Assistant Environmental Engineer and a Junior Engineer, marked Exhibit K-5. The Court recorded its findings on the city's layout, the sewerage in the north and south, the nalas, and the Mahapalika's failure to send treatment proposals to the Board. It also recorded the Ganga Action Plan proposals.
15. Noted: Appendix A/1 to the Action Plan for Prevention of Pollution of the Ganga shows 274.50 million litres a day of sewage from Kanpur. This is the highest in Uttar Pradesh and next only to Calcutta's 580.17 million litres a day.
16. Noted: the Mahapalika's Executive Engineer gave seven causes of pollution. They are the nalas, dairy waste, night soil, tanneries, the sewage that flows to the farms and the river, dhobi ghats and open defecation.
17. Noted: the affidavit said seven bodies had started action to cut pollution. It gave the sums spent and allocated under the Ganga Action Plan. It gave six reasons for the choking of the sewers and said untreated effluents would be stopped up to 80% by March 1988.
18. Noted: the petitioner drew attention to the Ganges Action Plan progress report of July 1986 to January 1987. It recorded iron at 29.200 and manganese at 0.900 in the Ganga at Kanpur, against limits of 0.3 and 0.05.
19. Noted: the report for February to June 1987 found oxygen demand higher than prescribed values and coliform bacteria very high from untreated municipal waste. It concluded that the water was unfit for drinking, bathing and fishing. It said all nullahs should be trapped, and raw water treated and disinfected.
20. Noted: the concluding part of the report said the Ganga was grossly polluted at Kanpur. It named the nullahs that discharge the largest quantities. It said the major nullahs should be diverted and treated, the Jajmau tanneries given combined treatment, and effluent treatment plants installed by all major polluting industries.
21. Noted: in tropical developing countries, much misery, sickness and death from infectious disease arises out of water supplies. The Court quoted Lall's Commentaries on Water and Air Pollution Laws (2nd edition, pages 331 and 333).
22. Noted: Lall says the tropics cannot safely take a limited view. Malaria, schistosomiasis, guinea worm and yellow fever are scourges or threats there. Poverty is worse, and most people in rural areas and city edges cannot afford a conventionally good water supply. A wider view is needed because of warmth and poverty.
23. Noted: Lall describes the classical water-borne diseases, typhoid and cholera. Both are caused by fragile organisms whose only reservoir is man. They break out as a common source outbreak when a community water supply is contaminated by faeces of a person suffering from or carrying the infection.
24. Noted: typhoid causes high fever with general symptoms. Few bacteria are enough to infect. The patient is not infective before falling sick. A small proportion of those who recover keep passing bacteria for months or years. These carriers are the source of water-borne infection.
25. Noted: gallstones make a person likely to become a carrier, because bacteria persist in the inflamed gall bladder. In the tropics, bladder lesions of Schistosoma haematobium also harbour infection. Rectal schistosomiasis with typhoid causes a persistent fever for many months. Typhoid bacteria survive in water but do not multiply there.
26. Noted: cholera is similar, but its bacteria are more fragile and the course is dramatic. Diarrhoea begins suddenly and in huge volume. An untreated victim may die of dehydration within about 24 hours.
27. Noted: other water-borne infections are less important. Leptospirosis comes from wild rodents that pollute the water. The bacteria can enter through the skin or be swallowed, and cause jaundice and fever called Weil's disease, which is severe but not common.
28. Noted: the Court said the extract shows how much suffering the public may undergo by using highly polluted water.
29. Noted: the Court then turned to U.N. Mahida, Water Pollution and Disposal of Waste Water on Land (1983), pages 1 to 5. When the human population was small and scattered, disposal of waste created no problem. As settlements grew, organised disposal replaced natural disposal, through earthen trenches and the basket privy system.
30. Noted: water-borne sewage created a new problem. The water used to carry away human waste also had to be disposed of. At first sewage was sent to natural streams and rivers, which was considered efficacious while discharges were small compared to stream flow. With larger discharges, polluted streams became a serious menace to public health.
31. Noted: modern water carriage moved sewage from streets to neighbouring rivers. It is ironic that people dispose of waste in the rivers from which they draw drinking water. With rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, the problem is reaching alarming proportions.
32. Noted: those who cause water pollution are seldom those who suffer from it. Cities and industries discharge untreated or partly treated waste and expose the downstream riparian population to unhygienic conditions. In many developing countries villages and agricultural populations rely on rivers for drinking, cooking, bathing and cattle. They need protection.
33. Noted: Mahida lists the benefits of control. Health improves, stream waters can be restored to be sources of supply, surroundings become attractive for recreation, and fish and aquatic life return.
34. Noted: polluted water also reduces a nation's water resources. Because demand keeps rising, treated waste water should be reused in industry or agriculture. Effluent on farmland supplies water and manurial ingredients. Recovery of valuable ingredients can offset treatment costs. Pollution control is therefore not unduly costly and is within the reach of all nations. Industries are now accepted as responsible for treating their trade wastes.
35. Noted: Mahida says the crucial question is not whether developing countries can afford pollution control, but whether they can afford to neglect it. Without it, a nation will face far heavier burdens in securing wholesome water. Early policies let developing countries avoid the costly mistakes of developed ones. The importance of controlling pollution is usually realised only after considerable damage.
36. Noted: at common law a municipal corporation can be restrained by injunction (a court order to stop an act) at the suit of a riparian owner if it pollutes a river with insufficiently treated sewage.
37. Noted: in Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd., [1953] Ch 149, Derby Corporation admitted polluting the River Derwent fishery with insufficiently treated sewage. It pleaded that the Derby Corporation Act, 1901 required it to provide a sewerage system, which had become inadequate only because the population grew. The Court of Appeal held that works built under the Act need not cause a nuisance, and that the Act did not authorise a nuisance.
38. Held: M.C. Mehta is not a riparian owner. He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who use the water of the Ganga, and his right to maintain the petition cannot be disputed.
39. Held: the nuisance is "a public nuisance, which is wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect". It would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it, as distinct from the community at large.
40. Held: the petition was entertained as a public interest litigation. The petitioner is entitled to move the Court to enforce the statutory provisions that impose duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards under the Water Act.
41. Held: because those duties were not obeyed for several years, the Ganga water at Kanpur can no longer be used for drinking or bathing. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution near the city.
42. Noted: works under the Ganga Action Plan had begun to improve the sewerage system and prevent pollution. The affidavits showed they were going on "at a snail's pace".
43. Held: the Court expected the authorities to finish the works within the target dates in the counter-affidavit and not to delay them. The Mahapalika must submit its sewage treatment proposals to the State Board within six months.
44. Held: the Mahapalika must act under the Adhiniyam or its bye-laws against waste from the dairies, which hold about 80,000 cattle. It may shift the dairies outside the city. Alternatively, it may remove the waste by motor vehicles, and then the dairy owners cannot claim any compensation. It must immediately stop the collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city.
45. Held: the Mahapalika must immediately enlarge the sewers in labour colonies so that sewage flows smoothly. It must lay sewer lines where none exist.
46. Held: the Mahapalika must immediately build enough public latrines and urinals for poor people to stop open defecation. The proposal to charge for their use must be dropped, since a charge would keep poor people from using them. The Mahapalika must bear the cost of keeping them clean.
47. Noted: it was submitted that accused persons file petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and obtain stay orders against Board prosecutions. No particular case was placed before the Court.
48. Held: since the pollution of the Ganga has become very acute, High Courts should not ordinarily stay criminal proceedings in such cases. Even if a stay is granted in an extraordinary case, the High Court should decide the case within a short period, about two months.
49. Held: the Court requests High Courts to take up within two months all cases where section 482 orders stay prosecutions under the Water Act. The Board's counsel must give a list of such cases to the Registrar of the High Court.
50. Held: the practice of throwing corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the Ganga must end immediately. The Mahapalika and the police must ensure this, and seek the co-operation of the people and police.
51. Held: future applications for licences to start new industries must be refused unless adequate provision is made to treat trade effluents. Immediate action must be taken against existing industries responsible for water pollution.
52. Noted: water and air pollution have grave consequences. Protecting and improving the natural environment is "one of the fundamental duties under the Constitution" (clause (g) of Article 51A).
53. Held: the Central Government must direct all educational institutions in India to teach at least one hour a week on the subject in the first ten classes.
54. Held: the lessons cover forests, lakes, rivers and wild life. The Central Government must get text books written and distribute them free. Children should be taught cleanliness, starting with their house and street, because clean surroundings lead to a healthy body and mind. Short training courses for teachers shall also be considered.
55. Noted: as an observation, the Government of India and the State and Union Territory Governments may consider organising three weeks, each once a year. They are Keep the City Clean (Nagar Nirmalikarana Saptaha), Keep the Town Clean (Pura Nirmalikarana Saptaha) and Keep the Village Clean (Grama Nirmalikarana Saptaha).
56. Noted: during the week, the place should be kept clean, tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air. Local authorities such as Mahapalikas, Municipal Corporations, Town Municipalities and Village Panchayats would organise it. It could be staggered according to local convenience.
57. Noted: all citizens, including members of the executive, Parliament, the State Legislatures and the judiciary, would be asked to join by giving free personal service. This would create national awareness of the appalling all-round deterioration of the environment. The Court requested the Ministry of Environment to consider this seriously. It is a suggestion, not a direction.
58. Held: what the Court has said applies mutatis mutandis (with the necessary changes) to all other Mahapalikas and municipalities with jurisdiction over areas through which the Ganga flows.

Authorities

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 463 (judgment of 22 September 1987): the earlier judgment on the Jajmau tanneries. The Court said the municipal bodies would be taken up next, and this judgment follows from it.
• Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd., [1953] Ch 149: cited for the common law rule that a municipal corporation can be restrained by injunction at the suit of a riparian owner. The Court of Appeal held that the Act did not authorise a nuisance.
• Lall's Commentaries on Water and Air Pollution Laws (2nd edition), pages 331 and 333: quoted on water-borne disease in the tropics. This is a text, not a decided case.
• U.N. Mahida, Water Pollution and Disposal of Waste Water on Land (1983), pages 1 to 5: quoted on the nature, benefits and urgency of controlling water pollution. This is a text, not a decided case.
• Also cited in footnotes: none. The judgment has no footnotes.

Judgement

The Court disposed of the petition as against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika with these directions:

1. The Mahapalika must submit its sewage treatment proposals to the State Board within six months of the judgment. The authorities must finish the Ganga Action Plan works within the target dates in their affidavits.
2. The Mahapalika must act under the Adhiniyam or its bye-laws against pollution from the dairies, which hold about 80,000 cattle. It may shift the dairies outside the city. Alternatively, it may remove their waste by motor vehicles, and then the dairy owners cannot claim any compensation.
3. The Mahapalika must immediately stop the collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city.
4. The Mahapalika must immediately enlarge the sewers in the labour colonies, and lay sewer lines where none exist.
5. The Mahapalika must immediately build enough public latrines and urinals for poor people to stop open defecation. The proposal to charge for their use must be dropped, and the Mahapalika must bear the cost of keeping them clean.
6. High Courts should not ordinarily stay criminal proceedings under the Water Act in petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a stay is granted in an extraordinary case, the case should be decided in about two months. High Courts are requested to take up stayed cases within two months. The Board's counsel must give the Registrar of each High Court a list of such cases.
7. The practice of throwing corpses and half-burnt bodies into the Ganga must end at once. The Mahapalika and the police must ensure this.
8. Applications for licences to set up new industries must be refused unless adequate provision is made to treat trade effluents. Immediate action must be taken against existing industries responsible for water pollution.
9. The Central Government must direct all educational institutions in India to teach, for at least one hour a week, lessons on protecting and improving the natural environment in the first ten classes. It must have the text books written and distribute them free of cost. Training of teachers through short courses shall also be considered.
10. The Governments may consider organising Keep the City Clean, Keep the Town Clean and Keep the Village Clean weeks. The Ministry of Environment is requested to consider this seriously.
11. The directions apply with the necessary changes to all other Mahapalikas and municipalities along the Ganga. Copies of the judgment go to all of them.
12. The case against the Mahapalikas and municipalities in Uttar Pradesh stands adjourned by six months. In that time each must file an affidavit in the Court on the steps it has taken in the light of the judgment.
13. The case against the industries in Uttar Pradesh on the banks of the Ganga will be taken up on 9 February 1988.

Costs: none are ordered in the judgment. The judgment ends with a note that the petition is disposed of.

Legal Principle / Ratio

A public-spirited person who is not a riparian owner may bring a public interest litigation under Article 32 to make municipal authorities and Boards perform their statutory duties to prevent water pollution. Pollution of the Ganga was a public nuisance that affected the community as a whole. The Court may give detailed directions to the municipal body, the High Courts, the licensing authorities and the Central Government to enforce those duties.

Key holding: the petitioner "is entitled to move this Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities".

The observations on the weekly clean-up campaign are suggestions, not directions.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The Court found that many statutory duties had only remained on paper. The judgment sets no penalty for the Mahapalika if it misses the six-month deadline. It only adjourned the case for affidavits.
• The Court expected the works to be finished by the target dates. It did not name a body to check progress.
• The request to High Courts on section 482 stays rests on a submission without facts of a specific case. The Court itself noted that no particular case was placed before it.
• The Keep the City Clean week and the school lessons are policy measures. The judgment does not say how the Central Government must report on them.

Significance

• The judgment completes the municipal part of the Court's work on Kanpur after its 22 September 1987 order on the tanneries. The case against the industries was still pending.
• It shows a non-riparian citizen enforcing statutory pollution-control duties through a public interest petition.
• It uses Article 51A(g) as the ground for a direction to the Central Government on environment education in schools.
• The directions apply to all Mahapalikas and municipalities on the Ganga, not only to Kanpur.
• It holds that the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika bears the major responsibility for the pollution of the river near Kanpur.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: Kanpur's untreated sewage, dairy waste and tannery effluent were polluting the Ganga, and M.C. Mehta sought action against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.
• Holding: a non-riparian citizen can sue in the public interest to enforce the Water Act duties of municipal bodies and Boards.
• Directions to remember: sewage treatment proposals within six months, dairies, sewers, public latrines without charge, High Court stays, new industry licences, and environment lessons in schools.
• Article 51A(g) is used for the direction to teach environment lessons in the first ten classes.
• Section 482 CrPC: stays of Water Act prosecutions should not ordinarily be granted, and any stay should be decided within about two months.
• Do not confuse this with the tanneries judgment of 22 September 1987, [1987] 4 SCC 463, or with other M.C. Mehta cases.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment of 12 January 1988. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited.