Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Kanpur Tanneries and Ganga Pollution Case

(1988) 1 SCC 471; AIR 1988 SC 1037

Citation
(1988) 1 SCC 471; AIR 1988 SC 1037
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 Sep 1987
Bench
E.S. Venkataramiah & K.N. Singh, JJ.

Facts

  • Numerous tanneries operated in Jajmau near Kanpur.
  • Leather processing generated highly toxic trade effluent containing chemicals and organic waste.
  • Many tanneries discharged untreated or inadequately treated effluent into drains leading to the River Ganga.
  • The discharge contributed to:
  • severe water pollution;
  • depletion of oxygen;
  • foul conditions;
  • danger to aquatic life;
  • public-health risks.
  • A petition under Article 32 sought measures to prevent continuing pollution of the Ganga.
  • The Pollution Control Board identified tanneries that had failed to install even primary treatment facilities.
  • The tannery owners argued that treatment plants were expensive and that closure would affect:
  • industrial production;
  • employment;
  • export income.
  • The Court considered whether financially weak industries could be allowed to continue until treatment became economically convenient.

Issue

  • Whether tanneries could continue operating without primary effluent-treatment plants.
  • Whether financial incapacity and employment concerns justified continued discharge into the Ganga.
  • Whether closure could be ordered to enforce the Water Act and protect Article 21 interests.

Rule

  • No industry has a right to carry on business in a manner that causes serious water pollution.
  • The Water Act requires consent and compliance with pollution-control standards.
  • Article 21 protects life and health from environmental contamination.
  • Where an industry cannot operate without causing unacceptable pollution, closure may be necessary.
  • Financial inability to install minimum pollution-control equipment is not a defence.
  • The cost of primary treatment is part of the cost of lawful industrial operation.

Application

  • The Court distinguished tannery effluent from ordinary domestic sewage.
  • Tannery waste contained chemicals and pollutants that were significantly more harmful and difficult to treat.
  • Untreated discharge directly entered the river system.
  • The Ganga was used for:
  • drinking;
  • bathing;
  • religious purposes;
  • agriculture;
  • livelihood.
  • Pollution therefore affected a very large public population.
  • The Court did not initially require every tannery to construct a complete common or secondary-treatment system independently.
  • It focused upon the minimum immediate requirement of primary treatment.
  • Primary plants would remove or reduce a substantial part of the dangerous matter before discharge.
  • Several industries had been given time but failed to take the necessary steps.
  • The Court rejected their economic arguments.
  • An industry that could survive only by externalising its treatment cost onto the river and public was not operating lawfully.
  • Employment and production were relevant concerns, but they could not justify continuing injury to:
  • public health;
  • water quality;
  • aquatic ecology;
  • downstream communities.
  • The Court stated in substance that the life and health of the public were more important than the continued operation of non-compliant tanneries.
  • Closure was treated as a preventive measure.
  • It was not imposed merely to punish past violations.
  • A tannery could seek permission to reopen after installing and operating the required treatment system.
  • The Court also directed the Pollution Control Board and authorities to supervise compliance rather than rely upon promises made by factory owners.
  • The case demonstrated that judicial environmental protection could include direct operational consequences where statutory enforcement had failed.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court ordered closure of tanneries that had failed to establish primary effluent-treatment plants.
  • No non-compliant tannery could continue merely because it employed workers or lacked funds.
  • Reopening was dependent upon installation of the necessary treatment facilities and satisfaction of the Pollution Control Board.
  • The Court held that the protection of the Ganga and public health outweighed the economic interest of industries operating unlawfully.
  • The judgment became an important authority for the proposition that pollution-control equipment is a mandatory cost of doing business.
  • Use this case for: closure of water-polluting industries that fail to install minimum treatment facilities.