What is the Taj Trapezium Case about?

It concerns air pollution around the Taj Mahal and nearby monuments, examining industry emissions and applying the Polluter Pays Principle to protect the heritage site.

Which principle did the Court rely on?

The Court relied on the Polluter Pays Principle—those who cause environmental harm must bear the cost of compensation and restoration.

What directions were given to industries?

292 industries were told to switch to cleaner gas via GAIL or apply for relocation. Worker rights and benefits, including shifting bonus, were protected.

Did the Court discuss Taj discoloration causes?

Yes. It noted emissions including sulfur dioxide and dust/carbon particles that contribute to acid rain and staining, harming the Taj’s white marble.

What is the takeaway for environmental governance?

Heritage protection needs strict emission control, cleaner fuels, and clear accountability so polluters finance cleanup and prevention.

MC Mehta v. Union of India (1997)

PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Taj Trapezium Case, Polluter Pays Principle, Taj Mahal pollution, Supreme Court 1997 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Sulfur dioxide, Mathura Oil Refinery, Acid rain, Industrial emissions, GAIL, Worker benefits

Quick Summary

This case deals with air pollution around the Taj Mahal. The Court examined whether emissions from the Mathura Oil Refinery and many nearby industries were harming the Taj and other monuments in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

The Supreme Court used the Polluter Pays Principle. It ordered industries to switch to cleaner fuel or relocate, and protected workers with continuity of service and a shifting bonus.

Issues

Did refinery and industry emissions release oxides of sulphur and nitrogen that lead to acid rain and damage the Taj?
Was the Taj’s discoloration due to dust and carbon particles (black/brown carbon) depositing on the marble?

Rules

Polluter Pays Principle

When environmental damage has happened, the one who caused it must pay—to compensate victims and to restore the environment.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for MC Mehta Taj Trapezium Case

TTZ Declared: A 10,400 sq. km zone around the Taj, covering 40 protected monuments, including Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri.

Petition Filed: M.C. Mehta approached the Court citing rising damage to the Taj from socio-economic and industrial activities.

Pollution Sources: Emissions from coal/coke-based industries and other sources worsened air quality.

Refinery Emissions: The Mathura refinery and other units released sulfur dioxide; with oxygen and moisture this led to acid rain that corrodes marble.

Relief Sought: Directions to authorities to control air pollution in the TTZ.

Jan 1993: The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter.

Arguments

Petitioner (M.C. Mehta)

Industrial emissions, especially SO₂ and dust/carbon, were discoloring and corroding the Taj.
Industries using coal/coke should shift to cleaner fuel or move out.
Heritage and public health require strict control with Polluter Pays.

Respondents (Industries/Authorities)

Claimed operations followed norms; questioned the extent of their contribution to damage.
Sought time and feasible transition plans for fuel switch or relocation.
Highlighted potential worker impact if abrupt closures occurred.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration for Taj Trapezium Case

Pollution from coal/coke-based industries was a major cause of damage to the Taj. The onus of proof lay on industries to show their coal/coke use was benign.
292 industries were directed to apply to GAIL by 15 Feb 1997 for industrial gas connections.
Industries not opting for natural gas had to apply for relocation with the Government.
Workers’ rights protected: continuity of service, salaries, and a one-year wages shifting bonus for those who moved with the industry.

Ratio Decidendi

Where industrial activity damages the environment and heritage, Polluter Pays ensures the cost of harm and restoration is borne by the polluter. Clean fuel transition or relocation may be ordered to prevent continuing damage.

Why It Matters

Protects a world heritage site through strict emission control.
Makes polluters pay for cleanup and restoration.
Builds a model for clean-fuel transitions with worker safeguards.

Key Takeaways

SO₂ + moisture → acid rain → marble corrosion.

Polluter Pays drives compensation and restoration.

Shift to natural gas or relocate polluting units.

Protect workers: continuity + shifting bonus.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Taj: Clean, Mean, Green.”

Clean the air—cut SO₂ and dust.
Mean the cost—polluter pays.
Green the fuel—gas or go.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Do emissions from refinery/industries cause acid rain and discolor the Taj, and what remedies apply?

Rule

Apply the Polluter Pays Principle after proven degradation; ensure cleanup and restoration are funded by polluters.

Application

Evidence of SO₂ and particulate pollution harming the Taj justified fuel switch orders and relocation options.

Conclusion

Court directed gas transition via GAIL or relocation; safeguarded workers; polluters bear the costs.

Glossary

TTZ (Taj Trapezium Zone): A large area around the Taj Mahal created to control pollution and protect monuments.
SO₂ (Sulfur Dioxide): Gas that forms acid rain, which corrodes marble and stones.
Black/Brown Carbon: Light-absorbing particles that darken and stain surfaces like white marble.
Polluter Pays: Legal idea that the polluter must pay for harm and restoration.