IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUBHASH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
CITATION: 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
BENCH: JUSTICE K.N SINGH AND JUSTICE N.D. OJHA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9 JANUARY, 1991
PETITIONER: SUBHASH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDANT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
LAWS CONCERNED: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26. Article 226 and 32 of the constitution,1950
Case Details:
In this case, the idea of ensuring that the right to water gets included in the chapter of the Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution. Public interest litigation (PIL) can be understood as: “when an act is done with an intention to protect or benefit of the public” which means to protect the interests of the citizens at large. It can be filed in any court as stated in Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India and by any individual body in public interested and especially for the person who fails to approach the Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner filed a public interest litigation claim against two respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), because they allegedly created health risks to the public by dumping waste from their factories into the nearby Bokaro river. The petitioner also claimed that the State Pollution Control Board had failed to take appropriate measures for preventing this pollution.
- The petitioner alleged that the respondents, had polluted the river Bokaro by disposing off the surplus waste from their washeries in the form of sludge or slurry, rendering the river’s water unfit for drinking and irrigation. Moreover, this waste gets deposited on the beds of the river and that includes Plot No. 170, which is the petitioner’s land.
- The petitioner requested the Court to instruct the respondents to take urgent measures to prevent river pollution and to initiate legal action against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974. The petitioner further sought interim relief from this Court, claiming that he be allowed to collect sludge/slurry pouring from the respondents’ washeries.
- Bihar State Pollution Board has informed the Court that it has already instructed the Bokaro Collieries to take immediate and effective steps to improve the quality of the effluent being discharged into the river. Further, TISCO has been granted permission to continue discharging waste into the river but only in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of the Act.
ISSUE AROUSED-
- Whether the petitioner was empowered to file a plea via a Public Interest Litigation?
- Whether the Bokaro river has been contaminated due to the discharge of slurry from the respondent’s washeries?
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF:
Subhash Kumar, the petitioner, argued that the water of the river Bokaro is getting polluted by the discharge of the waste in the form of slurry from the washers of Tata Iron & Steel Co. limited. He further alleged that the water flowing to remote locations is neither fit for drinking nor for irrigation purposes and the continuous discharge of sludge poses a huge risk to the health of people. It has also asserted that after making continuous requests no actions have been taken by the State of Bihar and even is granting royalty on payment of leases. In his plea, he pleads the court to order the State of Bihar and Bihar Pollution Control Board to keep a check and take immediate steps for curbing pollution in the Bokaro river. He requests that the State of Bihar, Bihar Pollution Control Board, be directed to take urgent action to reduce pollution in the Bokaro River caused by the discharge of sludge from Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS:
Defendants argued that, the Board has approved the Tata Iron & Steel Co. to release industrial effluents from its outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before allowing the effluents from the washeries to be discharged into the Bokaro River, the Board conducted an analysis and monitored to ensure that the effluents did not contaminate the river. The respondent’s lawyers claimed that the Bihar Pollution Control Board has taken all appropriate steps to avert contamination of the Bokaro river. The counsel also said that the company followed the rules and guidelines as stated by the State Pollution Control Board Act, 1974. It was said by the respondents that to prevent the pollution in the Bokaro River, the Board issued direction to the Director of the Collieries to take necessary steps for improving the quality of the river. It was further asserted by the respondents that four ponds were constructed to increase the storing capacity of the effluents. They further argued that no discharge of slurries was found in the river and stated no question for pollution of the river and hence the fertility of the land was also not affected. They also mentioned a fact that Bokaro river used to remain dry for 9 months, the slurry used to settle down in the pond was considered for sale as the carboniferous materials found in the slurry are very important and valuable for the purpose of fuel. It was made sure by the Company that no slurry escaped from the pond as it is highly valuable of fuel generation. Since the slurry has a high market value the company cannot afford to let it go waste in the river and for the same necessary steps has been taken by the Company that no slurry escapes in the pond.
COURT OBSERVED:
- The Court in the case of Subhash Kumar v state of Bihar & Ors. held that the Public Interest Litigation was not filed in the interests of larger public good but there was a personal interest involved of the petitioner. On behalf of the materials on record and keeping in view the facts, the court observed that the petitioner had his own self-interest and thereby the petition could not be maintainable in the court of law.
- The judgment was held by the two-judge bench consisting of Justice K.N Singh and Justice N.D. Ojha in 1991. Both the judges unanimously ruled in favour of the respondents. They were of the view that petitioner was not concerned with the interests of the public and he was neither worried about the ill effects of the pollution towards the environment or the public. The main purpose of having PIL as a remedy gets defeated when the petitioner prioritises his own self-interests rather than public interest.
- As the Petitioner was an influential businessman and has obtained a license for coal trading, he tried to put pressure on the Respondents to supply him with more quantity of slurry, when the Respondents denied him he started harassing the respondents.
- The court in this case, also focused upon the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and stressed on the need to widen its scope by promoting people’s right to live with a pollution free environment.
HELD BY COURT:
Hence, the Supreme Court upheld that the as several proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for permitting him to collect slurry from raiyati land. Considering all the facts the Court dismissed the present petition, hence directed the Petitioner to pay 5,000/- rupees to the Respondents.
CONCLUSION:
The intention of the petitioner to file a plea was ultimately guided by personal motives and thus the main aim of having PIL as a remedy for greater public good gets defeated in this case. It is the court’s responsibility to not accept such useless petitions in order to prevent miscarriages of justice for people. A person cannot use Public Interest Litigation to redress a personal grievance. The current petition is unconstitutional since it was not submitted in the public interest and was the product of a personal vendetta.
This article is written by Divyanshi Aggarwal of Institute of Management Education (IME),Chaudhary Charan Singh University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments