M C MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1997-11-92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 18,1997

M C MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1998-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
FORUM FOR A BETTER HYDERABAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANI SHANKAR PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2005-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHARIDESA KRUSAK SURAKHYA SANGHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-5-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The urgency for protection and improvement of the environment etc. has not been doubted for a long time. After the Stockholm Conference, 1972, in India several legislative steps have been taken for implementation of the programme. In addition to Article 47 in Part IV of the Constitution which imposes a duty on the State to improve the public health mentioned as one of the primary duties. Article 48A was inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3-1-1977 expressly to the effect that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country". Thereafter, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act) was enacted to provide for the protection and improvement of the environment and for matters connected therewith. The Statement of Objects and Reasons emphasises the world-wide concern over the decline in environmental quality and the urgency of steps required for the protection and improvement of the environment. It is clear that the possibility of any deterioration in the environmental quality was excluded and emphasis at the minimum was on protection with the endeavour to improve the then existing state of environmental quality. Any further decline in the environmental quality at least after the enactment of the Act is undoubtedly a failure to perform this obligation by the State, contrary to the constitutional scheme.
(2.)It cannot be disputed by anyone that there has been considerable further decline in the environmental quality even after enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, notwithstanding the resolve to prevent which the constitutional amendment was given effect to by enactment of the statute.
(3.)Even a cursory perusal of the provisions of the enactment reveal the emphasis on the need for not mere protection but also improvement of the environmental quality. The definitions including that of "environment" in Section 2 of the Act, the extent of the powers of the Central Government in Section 3 and the further power to give directions in Section 5 are alone sufficient to indicate the high degree of duty imposed on the State for which large powers are given to enable discharge of that duty. We may refer in particular to Sub-section (3) of Section 3 which confers powers on the Central Government to constitute an authority or authorities considered necessary or expedient by it for the purposes of this Act and the further power to give directions under Section 5.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.