Authored by: Pankaj Kumar
Citation: [1991 SCC (1) 598]
Date of judgment: 09/01/1991
Division bench: K.N. Singh, N.D. Ojha, JJ.
Court: The Supreme Court of India
Introduction
The Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution of India, and it also includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. For the enforcement of a fundamental right, public interest litigation can be filed under Article 32 by any person apart from the one whose fundamental right is violated, on the account of their poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, but the public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal interest.
Facts
• Subhash Kumar, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India by the way of public interest litigation for the issuance of writ or direction directing the director of collieries, West Bokaro Collieries at Ghatotand, district Hazaribagh in the Bihar State and the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge of sludge/slurry from its washeries into Bokaro river, as a result of which, the water of Bokaro river become unfit for drinking and irrigation purpose thereby causing risk to the health of the people.
• The petitioner asserted that despite several representations, the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board have failed to take any appropriate action against the respondent co.
• The petitioner further prayed for interim relief from this court that he will be allowed to collect sludge/slurry pouring from the respondent company.
• Despite all the allegations, the Bihar State Pollution Control Board has informed the court that the Board has already directed the Bokaro Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality of the effluents going into the river Bokaro.
• The Board further directed that the washeries shall perform dislodging of the settling tanks at regular intervals to achieve discharge of effluents within the standards prescribed by the Board.
• Further, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd has been granted permission to continue discharging waste into the river Bokaro, only in accordance with sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Key Contentions/ Issues Raised
• Whether public interest litigation under article 32 can be maintainable for personal interest?
• Whether the water of the Bokaro river is polluted due to the discharge of sludge/slurry from the respondent company?
• Whether the Bihar State Pollution Control Board has failed to take appropriate steps?
Arguments Advanced
1. Arguments presented by the petitioner:
According to the petitioner, the surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry is discharged as an effluent from the washeries of the respondent into the Bokaro river which gets deposited in the bed of the river and as a result of which the river water is not fit for drinking purpose and also posing risks to the health of people living in the surrounding area.
The petitioner further alleged that the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board have failed to take any action against the respondent company.
2. Argument presented by the respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Board has taken all the necessary steps to stop the pollution of the Bokaro river.
The respondent company in accordance with sections 25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 applied for sanction from the Board, to discharge their sewage from their outlets. The Board before granting sanction analyzed their sewage which was being watched regularly and monitored, to see that the discharges don’t affect the water quality of the Bokaro river adversely.
Judgment
The judgment held that Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of a fundamental right of citizens by the Supreme Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the fundamental right of citizens. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Right to live is a fundamental right, and it includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, every citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to preceding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body or person to satisfy his or her personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions, under Article 32 are entertained it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court in the garb of the public interest litigation.
Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which cannot enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty, or ignorance of the law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 should approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. Under the garb of the public interest litigation, it is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters.
In view of the above contention, this petition has been filed not in any public interest but for the petitioner’s personal interest and for these reasons, the petition is dismissed with costs.
Precedent mentioned
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1]
• Sachindanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal [2]
• Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors [3]
Case analysis
On the facts as appearing from the pleadings and the specific averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, prima facie it appears that the petitioner, an influential businessman, had been purchasing sludge/slurry from the respondent company for the last several years but when the respondent company refused to succumb to the petitioner’s pressure of supplying more quantity of sludge/slurry he tried to remove the slurry in an unauthorized manner. There was intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose of filing this petition is not to serve any public interest, instead, it is in self-interest as it would be clear from the prayer made by the petitioner in the interim stay application. The prayer for interim relief made by the petitioner clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the slurry and transporting the same for the purpose of his business. On the other hand, it is evident from records that the State Pollution Control Board has taken effective steps to check the pollution of the Bokaro river.
Conclusion
The significant point to note about public interest litigation is that it discards the traditional concept of locus standi, which means that only the person whose legal rights are being violated can approach the court for redress. The Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 by way of public interest litigation must approach this court for the vindication of the fundamental right of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. Every person should be acting bona fide and with a view to vindicating the cause of justice.
Bibliography
[1](1984) 2 SCR 67
[2] (1987) 2 SCC 295
[3] (1989) Suppl. 1 SCC 251
Commenti