Kanpur Tanneries Case

M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 (Kanpur Tanneries Case)
Introduction
This is a historic case where the issue of water pollution and right to health was dealt by the
apex court with main focus being prevention of the harm. The local tanneries in Kanpur were
discharging effluents from their factories in the holy river Ganga resulting in water pollution.
They did not set up a primary treatment plant in spite of being asked to do for several years,
nor even cared to express their willingness to take appropriate steps to establish primary
treatment plant. M.C. Mehta filed a writ of mandamus to prevent the tanneries from disposing
domestic, industrial and toxic wastes in the river and to enforce statutory provisions regarding
that. This case is also known as Mehta I case. He filed the PIL against 89 respondents
including various govt. bodies, wherein Respondent 1, Respondent 7, Respondent 8 and
Respondent 9 were Union of India, the Chairman of the Central Board for Prevention and
Control of Pollution, the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Indian
Standards Institute respectively who were not held liable.
Issues Raised
1. Whether all the leather tanneries had at least set up a primary treatment plant?
2. Whether the State Government had paid attention to the worsening condition of the
sacred river and had initiated probation into the matter?
3. Whether any steps, if at all, had been taken by the state?
4. Whether the smaller industries should be funded for setting up effluent treatment
plants? If yes, then what should be the criteria to determine ‘smaller industries’?
5. What all steps should the Central Government must take to regulate pollutant
discharge into the river throughout its course?
Arguments of the Petitioner
 The Petitioner argued that due to discharge of untreated effluents in the Ganga River,
the water of the river turned unsafe for drinking, fishing and bathing purposes and the
increasing levels of pollution of the Ganga were alarming, so necessary steps were
required to prevent the same.
 The Petitioner filed the PIL for protection of people and sought a direction from the
apex court inhibiting the Respondents from releasing toxic effluents into the Ganga
until they integrate appropriate treatment plants to treat the effluents to stop water
pollution.
Arguments by the Respondents
 None of the tanneries disputed the fact that the effluent discharge from the tanneries
grossly pollutes the Ganga.
 It was stated that they discharge the trade effluents into the sewage nullah, which
leads to the Municipal Sewage Plants before discharge into the river.
 Some tanneries stated that they have already had primary treatment plants, while
some are presently engaged in the same.
 Some of the tanneries who were members of the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce
and some of the other tanneries guaranteed that with the approval of Respondent 8
(State Board), they would construct primary treatment plants which would be
operational within a period of six months from the date of hearing and in failing to do
so, will shut down their tanneries.
 However, they argued that it would not be possible for them to establish secondary
treatment plants to treat the wastewater further as it would involve huge expenditure
which is beyond their means.
Judgment
It was held that so far as the tanneries are concerned, an order directing them to stop working
their tanneries should be passed as effluent discharged from tanneries is ten times noxious
when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river.
Accordingly, the Court passed the following order:
We are, therefore, issuing the directions for the closure of those tanneries which have failed
to take minimum steps required for the primary treatment of industrial effluent. We are
conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health
and ecology have greater importance to the people.
The Court also rejected the plea of financial incapability to set up the treatment plant. In this
regard the Court observed that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as
irrelevant while, requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry
which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which
cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence,
for, the adverse effect on the public at large which is likely to ensue by the discharging of the
trade effluents from the tannery to the river Ganga would be immense and it will outweigh
any inconvenience that may be caused to the management and the labour employed by it on
account of its closure.
The entire case was based on the discharge of ‘trade effluents’ into the Ganga. Trade
Effluents includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any
premises used for carrying on any trade or industry, other than domestic sewage. The
discharge of such trade effluents into the river was regarded as ‘public nuisance’ in this case.
The court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
and referred to Section 24 of the act prohibiting the use of the use of any ‘stream’ for disposal
of polluting matter. The Court also relied on the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Section
3 of this act confers power on the central government to take effective steps for the protection
and improving the quality of the environment and preventing environmental pollution.
Section 3(2)(iv) of this act, further empowers the government to lay down standards for
emission or discharge of pollutants, which may include closure, prohibition or regulation of
any industry, stoppage or regulation supply of electricity or water or any other service.
The court also referred to Ganga Action Plan which stated that under the laws of the land the
responsibility for treatment of industrial effluents is that of the industry. In addition to this,
the Supreme Court further relied on Article 52A (g) on the Constitution of India, which
imposes a fundamental duty of protecting and improving the natural environment.
The Court also held that under Article 51A of the Constitution, the Central Government had a
duty to prevent pollution and improve the environment. It was, therefore, the Central
Government’s duty to increase awareness in the nation by providing for compulsory study of
the natural environment. The Court directed the Central Government to publish and distribute
books, free of cost, for this purpose.
The Court also held the Mahapalika responsible for not taking steps to check pollution and
for not abiding by its statutory duties. It directed the Mahapalika to take immediate steps to
put schemes and policies in place to check pollution and to submit proposals concerning
sewage treatment facility in the area within six months of the order.
Analysis
From the above decision it is evident that the Court has considered the protection and
improvement of environment as a matter of general public interest and employed this tool in
putting reasonable restrictions on the citizen's right to carry on any trade occupation and
business. The Court drew a comparison to validate its order according to which the
incapability to set up a primary treatment plant is similar to a tannery which cannot pay
wages to its employees and thus will not be permitted to continue in business.
The Supreme Court did not stop just after passing the order directing for installing the
treatment plant by the tanneries. Subsequently, on March 29, 1990, the Supreme Court
appointed a Committee of Experts to visit Kanpur, where the tanneries were situated, and
inspect the tanneries plants alleged to have been set up by the tanneries. The Committee
divided all the tanneries into five categories and made recommendations for taking suitable
steps including imposition of heavy fines on the tanneries.
Conclusion
This is one of the most crucial cases of environmental law regarding importance of water
bodies and the significance of river Ganga in the Indian ecology. The bench opined that water
is the most important of the elements of nature. The judgment reminded the citizens of
the significance of a clean environment in our lives and their fundamental duties towards the
same to protect environment and secure their habitat.

Kanpur Tanneries Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kanpur Tanneries Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kanpur Tanneries Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037 (Kanpur Tanneries Case)

3. Whether any steps, if at all, had been taken by the state?

Arguments of the Petitioner

Arguments by the Respondents

Accordingly, the Court passed the following order:

You might also like