Trace Your Case

Category: Sources and Effects of Pollution

Categories
Sources and Effects of Pollution

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 412

ARJUN GOPAL V. UNION OF INDIA

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 412

ISSUE:

  • Whether the citizens facing consequences of degraded air pollution can pray for a complete ban on firecrackers in order to minimize the air pollution levels?

RULE:

  • The courts of the country are duty bound to address intense concerns when it affects the right to education, work, health and right to life as guaranteed under Part III of the Indian constitution.
  • There is a need to balance the bigger interest of the majority group as against the materialistic benefits of a minority wherein the citizens should be favored.
  • Constitutional balance should significantly give more priority to the negative consequences that the air quality has on the current and upcoming generations, rather than the temporary materialistic restrictions of those in the firecracker industry.

FACTS:

  • The petitioners filed the case in the Supreme Court in order to seek urgent reliefs with respect to the intense air pollution levels in the National Capital Region.
  • The petitioners’ application was filed in the light of the degrading air quality observed in the time of weddings and Diwali and that the consequences of the same are being felt on the mental and physical health of the residents.
  • The petitioners sought relief for a total ban on the firecrackers in order to reduce the air pollution levels.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court refused to give final orders and only pronounced interim directions wherein it placed a complete ban on the firecrackers availability in the markets across NCR as per Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules 2008.
  • The Supreme Court directed the Central Pollution Control Board to analyze and report on the negative consequences of the ingredients used in manufacturing firecrackers.
  • The Supreme Court recognized that the citizens themselves are responsible to make sure the environment is healthy and free of pollution as per Article 51A(g) of the Indian constitution.
  • The Supreme Court recognized the harmful effects of firecrackers on the health and well being of citizens of all age groups, including effects of asthama, bronchitis, lung cancer and etc in similar groups.
  • The Supreme Court relied on the reports that during the times of Diwali, when the firecrackers are burst, they release into the air a variety of dangerous particles, which adds to the pollution levels, both air and noise in winter. There is a significant drop in the air quality from mostly poor to worse during the said festival time.
  • The Supreme Court held that celebrating diwali by bursting firecrackers being a time honored fashion is not a valid justification on the negative impact that it has on the air which affects people in such a manner that their right to a healthy environment is lost.
Categories
Sources and Effects of Pollution

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 5731

ARJUN GOPAL V. UNION OF INDIA

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 5731

ISSUE:

  • Whether the increased pollution caused by firecrackers and explosives burst during the time of Deepwali be a valid ground for banning the firecrackers in spite of other pollutants being present in the air?

RULE:

  • The precautionary principle in environmental law does not need the backing of any scientific evidence or proof if the danger to the environment is significant and irreversible.
  • The fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) & Article 25 should be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution, keeping in mind the health of the population who reside in Delhi and NCR.

FACTS:

  • A writ petition was filed on behalf of 3 infants by their fathers with regards to the negative consequences on the health of the children due to the concerning dip in quality of the air in Delhi.
  • The petitioners claim that infant and children are the most vulnerable group since the effects on them include aasthama, cough, and breakdown of their nervous system and can include impairment of their cognitive abilities.
  • The petitioners approached the Supreme Court praying for guidelines with respect to studying the pollution and analyzing the reasons inclusive of burning crops, arbitrary dumping of the dust in the areas. The petitioners also prayed for a complete ban on firecrackers during any festivals or in general too.
  • A set of interim guidelines were given by the court included an indefinite ban on the sale of firecrackers in the National Capital Region under Rule 118 of the Explosives Act, 2008, directed the Central to suspend licenses for the same and ordered the Central Pollution Control Board to analyse the effects of the firecrackers and give a report.
  • When the said guidelines were challenged, the court recognized that firecrackers were not the sole reason for increased pollution. However, it also recognized there was a direct cause effect relationship with regards to the three fold increase in pollution levels especially during diwali time.
  • The aggrieved parties have therefore approached the Supreme Court to seek assistance for their pleas.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the guidelines issued in the past in the light of the negative consequences it has on the health of the individuals and therefore disposed all the applications with respect to modifying the case.
  • The Supreme Court issued further guidelines including manufacturing and sale of green crackers, ban on non green crackers, only licensed traders permitted to sell the firecrackers, e commerce websites to not accept orders for firecrackers, public awareness campaigns and similar such guidelines.
  • The Supreme Court ordered that bursting of firecrackers during the festival will take place only in designated areas marked by the government and no sale of prohibited firecrackers to be executed.
  • The Supreme Court recognized that even though firecrackers are not the only reason behind the pollution levels in Delhi, it does increase the temporary pollution levels.
  • The Supreme Court recognized that the minerals and elements used in manufacturing firecrackers cause skin issues, respiratory issues and other such health complications.
  • The Supreme Court passed these guidelines in the greater interest of the public and to balance the conflicting interests, with the public on one end and the manufacturers and traders of firecrackers on one end.
Categories
Sources and Effects of Pollution

Sterlite Industries India Ltd v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575

STERLITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD V. UNION OF INDIA

Sterlite Industries India Ltd v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575

ISSUE:

  • Whether a High Court has the power to interfere with an environmental clearance given by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India and Department of Environment, Government of Tamil Nadu?
  • Whether the decision of the High Court to order for closure of a copper smelter plan in the light of the impact on the environment and not adhering to the geographical restrictions was irrational?

RULE:

  • A High Court can review the clearance granted by the government only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety and nothing else.
  • The concerned persons who function under the Environment Protection Act, Environment Protection Rules to examine the limitations of the project, limitations of the assessment of the efforts while ensuring that statutory steps are adhered to.
  • The High Court cannot interfere with the powers of the State Pollution Control Board in the name of judicial review.

FACTS:

  • Sterlite Industries was granted a NOC by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) in order to set up a copper smelter plan in Tuticorin. The Ministry of Environment & Forests gave conditional environment clearance to set up the plan in 1995.
  • TNPCB gave consent under Section 21 of Air Act & Section 25 of Water Act for the plant. However, this along with the environmental clearance by the Ministry was subject to challenge by the National Trust for Clean Environment in the Madras High Court.
  • The grounds of challenge were irrationality behind the environmental clearance and non adherence to the geographical restrictions of the plant as per the consent order.
  • Pending the applications, the plant was set up and production began, in response to which an injunction application was filed by various people.
  • A Division Bench heard all the applications and by a common direction ordered for the closure of the plant in Tuticorin and directed the District Collector to ensure that the employees of the plant would receive compensation as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and re employment too.
  • Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, Sterlite Industries has appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court since it found that out of the 30 directions given by the TNPCB, the plant had adhered to 29 of them and only one was remaining.
  • The Supreme Court ordered the plant to pay a compensation of Rs 100 crore in lieu fo the pollution it caused between 1997 to 2012 and for functioning without renewing its license.
  • The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing writ petitions filed before it for the lack of public hearing carried on before the environmental clearance was granted since the notification requiring the public hearing was published after the Ministry gave its clearance to the plant.
  • The Supreme Court recognized that there was no irrationality behind the environmental clearance being given to the plant since the Ministry relied on Environmental Impact Assessment reports, NOC from the Pollution Control Board of the State and a study of the risks of the project.
  • The Supreme Court identified that even though the TNPCB directed the plant to be established 25 kms away from the ecologically sensitive area, they themselves failed to recognize that the industrial complex of the plant was 25 kms within the same ecologically sensitive order. Therefore, the High Court’s ruling that the geographical restrictions were not adhered to was right.