Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Taj Trapezium Case

(1997) 2 SCC 353; AIR 1997 SC 734

Citation
(1997) 2 SCC 353; AIR 1997 SC 734
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
30 Dec 1996
Bench
Kuldip Singh & Faizan Uddin, JJ.

Facts

  • The Taj Mahal was showing signs of discolouration, yellowing and deterioration of its white marble.
  • Industrial units operating within the Taj Trapezium Zone used coal and coke.
  • Their emissions included sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter.
  • When combined with atmospheric moisture, sulphur dioxide could contribute to acid formation and damage marble.
  • Reports by NEERI, the Varadharajan Committee and other experts examined industrial pollution in the area.
  • Major pollution sources included:
  • foundries;
  • glass industries;
  • chemical units;
  • brick kilns;
  • other coal- and coke-using industries.
  • The Court considered whether the industries should:
  • switch to natural gas;
  • relocate;
  • cease using polluting fuels.
  • Industries argued that closure or relocation would cause financial loss and unemployment.

Issue

  • Whether industrial emissions in the Taj Trapezium Zone threatened the Taj Mahal and public health.
  • Whether the Court could require industries to change fuel or relocate.
  • How environmental protection should be balanced with employment and industrial development.

Rule

  • The precautionary principle requires preventive action where credible scientific material indicates a risk of serious environmental harm.
  • The polluter-pays principle places the cost of pollution control upon the polluting enterprise.
  • Sustainable development permits industry only where environmental limits are respected.
  • Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) support protection of health, environment and cultural heritage.
  • Economic activity does not include a right to use highly polluting fuel where a cleaner alternative is available.

Application

  • The Court relied heavily upon scientific reports rather than waiting for complete destruction of the monument.
  • The evidence showed a reasonable connection between coal-based industrial emissions and the deteriorating environmental conditions around the Taj Mahal.
  • The Court applied the precautionary principle.
  • It was unnecessary to postpone action until every molecule of pollution could be traced to a specific factory.
  • The Taj Mahal was:
  • a monument of exceptional national importance;
  • a cultural heritage site;
  • an irreplaceable public resource.
  • Damage to its marble could not be adequately compensated through money after it occurred.
  • Prevention was therefore essential.
  • Natural gas had become available as a cleaner fuel.
  • Industries were given a choice:
  • apply for and use natural gas; or
  • relocate outside the protected zone.
  • They were not permitted to continue using coal and coke merely because conversion involved expense.
  • Pollution-control cost formed part of the cost of conducting business.
  • The Court also considered workers.
  • Environmental protection was not used as a reason to deprive employees of every legal benefit.
  • Directions were issued concerning:
  • continuity of employment at relocated units;
  • wages during the transition;
  • compensation where relocation did not occur;
  • treatment of relocation as continuity rather than termination.
  • This balanced environmental protection with labour welfare.
  • The Court rejected the claim that the dispute concerned only the monument.
  • The same air pollution also affected the health of residents living in Agra and surrounding areas.
  • Protecting the Taj therefore supported both heritage conservation and the constitutional right to life.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court directed 292 identified industries to switch from coal or coke to natural gas within the prescribed schedule.
  • Industries unwilling or unable to convert were required to stop operating within the Taj Trapezium Zone and relocate.
  • Continued use of the polluting fuels after the deadline was prohibited.
  • Worker-protection and compensation directions accompanied the relocation order.
  • The case firmly applied the precautionary principle, polluter pays and sustainable development to heritage and air-pollution protection.
  • Use this case for: compulsory clean-fuel conversion or relocation to protect the environment and cultural heritage.