M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1992)
```
Quick Summary
This case targets industries, including tanneries at Kanpur, that released untreated effluents into the Ganga. The Supreme Court said: install and run effluent treatment plants or face closure. It applied Polluter Pays and linked clean water to Article 21 (right to life).
Issues
- Can industries continue without adequate pollution control measures?
- Does the State Pollution Control Board have power to order closures?
- Can units without primary effluent treatment plants keep operating?
- Does failure to deposit required funds for pollution control warrant closure?
Rules
No Untreated Discharge
Effluents must be treated before entering water bodies. ETPs are mandatory to operate.
Board’s Closure Power
Pollution Control Boards can inspect, regulate, and close non-compliant industries.
Business v. Environment
Right to trade is not absolute; it is subject to environmental law and public health.
Facts (Timeline)
PIL Filed: M.C. Mehta moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 against Ganga pollution.
Targeted Units: Tanneries and other industries discharged untreated effluents.
Prior Directions: Allahabad High Court had issued control measures; compliance remained weak.
SC Orders: Install primary ETPs and follow norms; many industries still defaulted.
UPPCB Inspections: Continued non-compliance reported; closures considered.
Deposits & Costs: Some units failed to pay required contributions for pollution control.
Outcome: Defaulting tanneries faced immediate closure; further inspections mandated.
Arguments
Appellant (M.C. Mehta)
- Untreated discharge harms health and ecology of the Ganga basin.
- Non-compliant units must be shut until ETPs are functional.
- Right to life under Article 21 includes clean water.
Respondents (Industries/State)
- Economic impact and jobs need consideration.
- Time and funds required to install/upgrade ETPs.
- Some compliance steps already taken.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that discharging untreated effluents violates environmental laws and Article 21. Non-compliant industries may be closed. The Polluter Pays principle applies, and Boards have authority to enforce compliance.
- Immediate Closures: Defaulting units shut; district administration to enforce.
- Operate Only with ETPs: Functional plants are mandatory for continued operation.
- Ongoing Oversight: UPPCB to inspect and report compliance.
Ratio (Reason for Decision)
Public health and river ecology trump economic excuses. Business rights yield to strict pollution control. Enforcement through closure is lawful where ETPs are absent or idle.
Why It Matters
- Strengthens Article 21 environmental protection.
- Normalizes closure as a tool against chronic violators.
- Makes Polluter Pays actionable for clean-up and restoration.
Key Takeaways
Costs of treatment and restoration lie with the polluter, not the public.
No ETP, no operation. Plants must run effectively, not just exist on paper.
Boards and courts can shut units that persistently violate norms.
Clean rivers are part of the right to life—non-negotiable.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “E-C-R = ETP — Closure — Right to life”
- ETP: Treat first, discharge later.
- Closure: Shut repeat offenders.
- Right: Clean water is part of Article 21.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can polluting industries run without functional ETPs and still avoid closure?
Rule
Mandatory treatment; Board’s power to close; Polluter Pays; Article 21.
Application
Inspections showed persistent default; untreated effluents continued; funds not deposited.
Conclusion
Defaulting units closed; only compliant plants may operate, with ongoing checks.
Glossary
- ETP
- Effluent Treatment Plant—system that treats industrial wastewater before discharge.
- Polluter Pays
- Principle that the polluter bears the cost of prevention and clean-up.
- Closure Order
- Legal direction to stop operations of a violating industrial unit.
- UPPCB
- Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board—state regulator for pollution control.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now