Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Spread the love

Post Views: 2,589

Petitioners: Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others

Respondents: Union of India and others

Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. and Kirpal B.N, J. (SC)

Petition No.: WRIT PETITION (C) No. 967 of 1989

FACTS OF THE CASE

An environmental organization named the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action filed a writ petition against a group of chemical manufacturers who were under the same ownership and situated in the same locality in Bicchri, a small town in the Udaipur District of Rajasthan, India.
To the north of the aforementioned town, there existed the first major industrial undertaking – Hindustan Zinc Limited, which was a public company. The crux of the matter dates back to 1987 when Hindustan Argo Chemicals Limited commenced the production of chemicals like Single Super Phosphates and Oleum (a highly concentrated type of sulfuric acid). [1]
The real calamity unfolded when Silver Chemicals, which was a subsidiary of Hindustan Argo Chemicals Limited, began manufacturing “H” acid in their factory solely for export purposes.

The process of making ‘H’ acid generated copious quantities of extremely dangerous effluents, primarily consisting of iron- and gypsum-based sludge. If not managed properly, these by-products posed significant environmental hazards and consequences, as they were lethal. [2]
All of this contributed to the production of harmful effluents in that area, which the companies failed to handle appropriately. Everything that comes into contact with these industries, including the air and water, has been contaminated.
According to a survey, approximately 2500 tons of very toxic sludge was released during the processing of about 375 tons of “H” acid. These facilities threw the sludge out in the open in the field regions instead of properly disposing of it.
This has had extremely negative effects. Over time, these dangerous compounds began to seep down into the earth, contaminating the aquifers and underground water supplies. The wells and streams in the village close by started to change color and suffer severe damage, making the water unfit for any usage.
A major setback for the villagers, the majority of whom relied on agriculture for their subsistence, was that the soil had also been damaged and had become unsuited for cultivation. The pollutants led to illness and death among the locals.
Such disastrous outcomes caused a stir in the legislature, and the minister made a vow to act, but nothing fruitful was done right away. The District Magistrate of the area was forced to impose Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code [3] and the shacks of the Case after the villagers rose in protest.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

What should be the financial obligation of businesses involved in a harmful industrial activity if such action harms the lives, health, and livelihoods of those who may be at risk as a result of such activity?
Did the businesses producing hazardous chemicals take any action to protect the environment? [4]
Does the respondent bear the responsibility of providing the funds necessary to undertake corrective or remedial actions?
Does this scenario come under the strict liability criterion explicated in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher?
What is the liability of a company’s responsibility if someone is killed or hurt as a result of an accident occurring in a hazardous or inherently risky industry?

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER

The proceedings began with the parties arguing their grounds of contention following the institution of the case and identification of the relevant facts. Here is a rundown of the petitioner’s arguments:
The Respondents started producing hazardous chemicals, including “H” acid, in the same compound situated in the village of Bichhri. The production of these potentially hazardous substances resulted in the creation of toxic effluents, in particular sludge.
The fact that the companies never properly handled the sludge and moved it out into the environment also contributed to the contamination of many other environmental resources, including the air, soil, and water. Due to the increasing pollution in the surroundings, the corporations had to be closed down without any delay. [5]
The respondents had requested a “No Objection Certificate” to produce the perilous chemicals, but their plea was turned down by the appropriate authorities. This denial is proof enough of the extent to which the production of chemicals can contribute to environmental deterioration.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

The court also offered the other side an opportunity to present counterarguments after the petitioner finished speaking and outlining its main concerns.

Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited provided the following justifications:
In a counter-affidavit, they contend that the Pollution Control Board had granted permission to their factory to produce sulfuric acid and alumina sulfate, albeit with certain limitations.
The company began producing the controversial chemicals Oleum and Single Super Phosphate instead of sulfuric acid after obtaining a “No Objection Certificate” from the board, in accordance with the major acts of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981[6], and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act[7], 1974. [8]

Because the majority of harmful chemicals are resistant, treating effluents can be challenging. The Writ Petition does not lie against the respondents because they are “private companies” and do not fall under Article 12. In addition, there has been no action taken against numerous other companies in the country that manufacture “H” acid. The reports submitted by the RSPCB are erroneous and cannot be relied upon. R4-8 has stopped producing the hazardous “H” Acid and has no intention of resuming its production. The respondents have suggested the establishment of environmental courts through legislative means.

JUDGEMENT

The ruling in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India[9] was cited by the Supreme Court. The incorporation and development of the law of total responsibility in India are due to this case. According to this rule, “Any person who engages in any intrinsically harmful or dangerous action and who causes any harm to any person while engaging in such dangerous conduct shall be accountable and shall not be entitled to offer any defense.” According to the Supreme Court, the current case is covered by this law.
According to the Supreme Court, under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution [10], industries are considered “States,” and if a private corporate body violates a person’s fundamental rights, the court will treat the entity as a “State. “The court ruled that it is the responsibility of the court to step in when the government and other relevant authorities fail to take the appropriate precautions and legal action. The writ is therefore maintainable in this instance. [11]
The court directed the industries to pay fines. Specifically, they were required to pay Rs. 37,385,000 plus compound interest at a rate of 12% per annum, starting from April 11, 1997, until the full amount was paid. Furthermore, the industries were ordered to reimburse the legal expenses incurred due to their deliberate waste of the court’s time for fifteen years. Additionally, the court mandated that the defendant industries pay Rs. 10, 00,000 to implement remedial measures in Bichhri village in the Udaipur district and nearby areas.

The court ordered the shutdown of all industrial facilities belonging to respondents 4 to 8, located near Bichhri village, and instructed the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board to close down all companies and plants owned by these respondents. The court applied the Polluter Pays Principle [12], which means that anyone responsible for causing harm to the environment must be punished, regardless of whether they took any preventative measures or not. In addition to compensating for the damage caused, the polluter is also responsible for covering the expenses incurred in restoring the environment to its original state. [13]

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

Even though the execution of such instructions was improbable, the division bench’s decision is highly obvious and felicitous. This case is exceptional since the respondents were able to drag out the dispute for an additional 15 years even after the Supreme Court issued its ruling by submitting many interlocutory applications to avoid following the court’s directives. As a result, the litigants continued to reap profits from pending cases.
As a result, the Court issued some instructions following the environmental organization’s writ petition, and the Respondents were required to follow any earlier rulings. The Supreme Court’s comprehensive order guarded against violations of the public’s interests and fundamental rights. [14]
The amount of compensation assessed against the Respondents and the application of rules. The Polluter Pays Principle, sometimes known as the concept of absolute liability, was applied by the court quite precisely. When seen from the perspective of this idea, the court’s punishment is equivalent to the damage done. The court also ordered an amount that was proportionate to the harm caused by the delay of 15 years and the interest amount. The poor villagers, who in this case appear to be the only party actually at loss, cannot yet be said to have received justice.

CONCLUSION

Justice delayed is justice denied, as demonstrated in the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India case. Remedial actions from the court were desperately needed by the inhabitants and those in the area. The problem and the terrible circumstances in which the residents of Bichhri Hamlet were living were evident from the evidence and earlier reports.
Despite the Supreme Court’s verdict, there were no measures put in place to regulate the chemical industry. The respondents, who had significant influence, filed interim applications and failed to comply with the court’s directives, therefore, there is a need for a well-crafted legal system that protects victims from such dominant parties. Therefore, the main objective of the court in determining compensation should be to ensure that the victim receives fair compensation for the harm suffered and to deter the polluter from repeating similar harmful actions in the future.

[1] (Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India 2021)

[2] (Reddy n.d.)

[3] (Section 144 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 n.d.)

[4] (Disha 2022)

[5] (Sreejith 2020)

[6] (THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 n.d.)

[7] (THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 n.d.)

[8] (Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others (Petitioners) v. Union of India and others (Respondents) 2011)

[9] (M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986 n.d.)

[10] (Article 12 in The Constitution Of India 1949 n.d.)

[11] (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India: Polluter Pays n.d.)

[13] (Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs Union of India 2000)