This article has been written by Astitva Kumar Rao, 3rd year of the BALLB (HONS.) at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat, in Haryana.
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUBHASH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS
HON’BLE JUDGES – JUSTICE K.N SINGH & JUSTICE N.D. OJHA
DATE OF JUDGMENT – 9 JANUARY, 1991
PETITIONER – SUBHASH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT – STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
CITATION – 1991 AIR 420 1991 SCR (1) 5 (1991) 1 SCC 598
INTRODUCTION
The judiciary has played an important role in ensuring that the water right is incorporated in the Indian Constitution’s chapter on Fundamental Rights. Social activists have benefited from the socio-legal tool of Public Interest Litigation, which allows them to easily bring a case against violations of the Right to Water. This establishes affirmative responsibility on the state to reduce environmental harm through the employment of various laws and policy implementation.
In VELLORE PEOPLE’S WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA[1], 1990, the Supreme Court of India decided that tanneries violated people’s right to clean water by releasing untreated effluents onto agricultural fields and causing damage to local groundwater sources. The Supreme Court broadened the scope of the right to life in this case, explicitly including the right to pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life.
The court assessed whether the threat to a citizen’s quality of life can be constitutionally challenged under Article 32. The court considered a broader interpretation of Article 21, which would guarantee people a healthy environment. The court went on to establish the foundation for the maintainability of the PIL in the event of a breach of constitutional freedoms under Article 32.
BACKGROUND
In this case, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution has been given a broad meaning. Article 32 of the Constitution was established and designed for the Supreme Court to enforce people’ Fundamental Rights. It is an unusual procedure established by the Constitution to protect an individual’s rights. The right to life is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which ensures an individual’s access to a pollution-free environment and water. If something endangers an individual’s quality of life in violation of the law, a citizen is given a remedy in Article 32 of the Constitution for the eradication of the pollution that has harmed the quality of life.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution, aggrieved people or groups of people can file a petition to avoid pollution. A person or group of people cannot bring a public interest lawsuit to settle a personal grudge or hostility. If such petitions are sustained and entertained under Article 32, it would be an abuse of the Court’s process, denying legitimate petitioners a remedy; personal interests cannot be imposed by the Court’s procedure under the guise of public interest litigation. Public Interest Litigation expects judicial proceedings to enforce the fundamental rights of those who are unable to do so themselves. A person should approach the court to enforce individual rights rather than to vindicate hatred. It is the court’s duty not to hear such petitions and to verify that no individual has suffered a serious miscarriage of justice.
FACTS
Subhash Kumar filed a Public Interest Litigation to prevent water contamination from Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.’s washeries. The petitioner said that Parliament passed the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 to protect water quality and prevent pollution. The State Pollution Control Board was established to carry out Section 17 of the Act’s responsibilities. The Board should review trade effluents and sewage treatment plants, as well as evaluate water treatment data and standards. Section 24 of the same legislation prohibits intentionally discharging dangerous or contaminated materials into rivers.
The petitioner claimed that Tata Iron and Steel Company engaged in mining activities in Jamshedpur, also known as the West Bokaro Collieries. They claim that garbage from washeries is dumped as effluent in the Bokaro River, causing it to settle on their land, Plot No.170. The sludge produced in this manner is absorbed by agricultural soil, resulting in a fine carboniferous layer. He further argues that sludge from the washeries pollutes the water, making it unsafe for irrigation or drinking. Despite concerns, the State Pollution Control Board did not take action against the Company, resulting in water pollution. Instead, the State of Bihar granted a lease for slurry collection to various individuals in exchange for royalty payments.
The petitioner has requested a direction from the State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, the Union of India, and Tata Iron & Steel Co. to prevent water pollution from slurry discharge in the Bokaro River. They have also requested further action against TISCO under the Act’s provisions. The defendants’ counter-affidavit refutes the claim that sludge is dumped through washeries into the river Bokaro, claiming no contamination of the water. The Board claims to have taken all necessary preventive steps to ensure water quality.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the PIL is maintainable or not and on what grounds?
- Whether the water of the river Bokaro has been contaminated by the discharge of sludge/slurry from the washeries of the Respondent’s Company?
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS
The petitioner contends that dumping excess trash in the river, such as sludge/slurry from washeries, leaves a carboniferous residue on the soil, compromising its fertility. They argued that the water in remote places is unfit for drinking or irrigation and that the discharge of sludge from Tata Iron & Steel Co. poses a serious health danger to residents. He said that the water in remote areas is unfit for drinking or irrigation and that the continued sludge outflow from Tata Iron & Steel Co. poses a health danger.
The plaintiff requests that the court direct the State of Bihar and the Bihar Pollution Control Board to take immediate action to reduce pollution in the Bokaro River. The author requests that the Bihar Pollution Control Board take immediate action to reduce pollution in the Bokaro River from sludge discharged by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
The respondent’s counsel submitted that the Bihar Contamination Control Board has taken all necessary precautions to prevent contamination in the Bokaro River. The Board has granted Tata Iron & Steel Co. permission to discharge effluents from its outlets by Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before allowing the effluents to be discharged into the Bokaro River, the Board conducted an analysis and monitored that the effluents from the washeries did not pollute the river. Respondents stated that to prevent contamination in the Bokaro River, the Board directed the Director of Collieries to take the required actions to improve river quality. Respondents further claimed that four ponds were built to boost the sewage storage capacity. The Pollution Board monitored the effluent, and on June 20, 1988, the Board inspected the settling tanks to treat effluent from washeries. During the examination, it was discovered that the four settling tanks had been completed and that there was no discharge from the effluents, except some seepage from the embankment. It was also said that no effluent discharge was discovered in the Bokaro River, and there was no question of river pollution, implying that soil productivity was unaffected.
The defendants deny the claims mentioned in the petition and claim that effective measures have been adopted to prevent the discharge of sludge from washeries into the Bokaro River. The Respondents also stated that the Bokaro River remains dry for 9 months, so there is no question of pollution from the discharge of slurry. The slurry settled in the pond was considered for sale because the carboniferous materials found in the slurry are very important and valuable for fuel. The Company ensured that no slurry escaped from the pond because it is highly useful for fuel generation. Because the slurry has a high market value, the corporation cannot afford to waste it in the river, and the company has taken all required precautions to ensure that no slurry escapes into the pond. The Respondents went on to say that the Company followed the guidelines outlined in the State Pollution Control Board Act of 1974.
OBITER DICTA (A JUDGE’S EXPRESSION OF OPINION)
The Court ruled that the Public Interest Litigation was not launched in the interests of the wider public good, but rather for the petitioner’s benefit. Based on the evidence on record and the facts, the court determined that the petitioner had his self-interest, and so the petition could not be maintained in a court of law. Judges found unanimously in favour of the respondent. They believed that the petitioner was not concerned with the public’s interests and was unconcerned about the negative consequences of pollution on the environment or the people. The primary aim of having a PIL as a remedy is lost when the petitioner prioritises his self-interest over the public good. As an influential businessman with a coal trading licence, the Petitioner attempted to put pressure on the Respondents to supply him with a larger quantity of slurry; when the Respondents refused, he began harassing the Respondents. The court in this case emphasised the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and emphasised the need to broaden it by supporting people’s right to live in a pollution-free environment.
JUDGEMENT
The Court ruled that the Public Interest Litigation was not launched in the interests of the wider public good, but rather for the petitioner’s benefit. Based on the evidence and facts, the court determined that the petitioner’s self-interest made the petition unsustainable in court. The court denied Subhash Kumar’s petition and ordered him to pay the Respondents Rs. 5000/- in costs.
In 1991, a two-judge bench comprising of Justice K.N Singh and Justice N.D. Ojha issued the ruling. Both judges made unanimous decisions in favour of the respondents. The petitioner was deemed unconcerned with the public’s interests and the negative impact of pollution on the environment and society. The primary goal of a PIL as a remedy is lost when the petitioner prioritises his self-interest over the public good. The petition itself demonstrates that the primary objective of filing it is not to represent the public good, but rather to satisfy one’s self-interest. For several years, the petitioner has been obtaining slurry from the corporations. He wanted more and more muck as time passed, but the corporation refused to provide. He illegally took the company’s slurry, and he and his brother are now facing criminal charges for it. He held a grudge against the respondent firm since it refused to sell extra slurry, and he brought repeated lawsuits against them to fuel his anger. The petitioner filed numerous petitions in the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, demanding authorization to collect slurry from the region. The Board was not found to be at fault by the Court, notwithstanding the petitioner’s allegations. The Board had fulfilled its role by inspecting the industry’s activities. It was established that the industries were not involved in any of the petitioner’s allegations. As a result, the petitioner was at fault for wasting the court’s time. As a result, the court denied the petition.
In this decision, the court also emphasised the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasising the need to broaden it by encouraging people’s right to live in a pollution-free environment. However, the court decided not to delve into further detail because the petition was made for personal advantage rather than in the public interest.
RATIO DECIDENDI (REASON FOR A COURT’S DECISION)
The facts and pleadings on behalf of the Respondent made it clear that there was no good reason to accept the Petitioner’s contentions that the water of the Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the Respondent Company’s washeries. On the other hand, the bench found that the State Pollution Control Board took effective steps to control pollution. The counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents reveal that the petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the Respondents for several years and that he has requested more slurry over time, but the respondent company has refused to accept his request.
As an influential businessman with a coal trading licence, the Petitioner attempted to put pressure on the Respondents to supply him with a larger quantity of slurry; when the Respondents refused, he began harassing the Respondents. The Petitioner filed many petitions before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking permission to collect sludge from the raiyati land. The court did not contemplate going into deeper detail because the current petition was brought for personal gain rather than in the public interest.
ANALYSIS
The court ruled that the State Pollution Control Board has taken adequate precautions to prevent industrial effluents from being released into the Bokaro River, addressing Subhash Kumar’s principal concern about the PIL’s maintainability. Thus, the petition was dismissed. The Court’s powers under Art. 32 must be used to protect the rights of those damaged, rather than to defend personal grievances or hostility.
The court must prevent dishonest petitioners from using personal matters as public interest litigation, as established in cases such as BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA[2] and SACHIDANAND PANDEY V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[3]. The court ruled that the petition was not filed in the public interest as it was motivated by the petitioner’s desire to obtain larger quantities of waste in slurry from one of the respondent companies. The petitioner had been purchasing slurry from this company for several years before filing the petition. The court ruled that Article 21 guarantees access to clean water and air for a fulfilling existence. Individuals have the right to a remedy for environmental pollution, including the removal of sources and contamination of water or air that may affect their quality of life. The court acknowledged people’s fundamental rights but did not endeavour to enforce them by dismissing the petitioner’s PIL. The court’s decision may have overlooked the right to a healthy environment.
The Court dismissed the request solely because the plea was not maintainable and did not address the underlying issue of pollution’s detrimental impact on public health. After dismissing the plea, the court should have directed state entities to conduct sufficient monitoring to prevent harm to public health or the environment. The recognition of this right expanded the scope of Art. 21 in the Indian Constitution. This judgement is hailed in the legal community for preventing abuse of the country’s people’s broad liberties.
CONCLUSION
The examination of the preceding case indicates that laws are frequently exploited due to numerous loopholes, regardless of how tough the requirements are. This occurs most often when the public interest is overlooked in favour of personal gain, as in this case, where the petitioner was found to be at fault rather than the respondents. The petitioner’s intention to make a plea was ultimately influenced by personal interests, and hence the primary goal of establishing a PIL as a remedy for larger public welfare is thwarted in this case. The court must reject pointless petitions to avoid miscarriages of justice for individuals. The court ruled that if environmental contamination occurs, a solution to remove the pollution is permissible. The judiciary’s judgements promote environmental governance, uphold the rule of law, and strike a balance between environmental, social, and developmental concerns. The Supreme Court has prioritised groundwater restoration as a crucial aspect of the State’s commitment to protecting the water right, which is a basic right under our federal system. The establishment of the fundamental right to water, thus, is the product of judicial pronouncements rather than legislative action, when reading Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to life, in such a way that it encompasses all aspects of life as well as the right to a clean environment to sustain life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently maintained this in situations like this one, pointing out that the water right is implicit when the right to a clean environment is recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution.
REFERENCES
ARTICLES –
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform (Sept. 1, 1991), https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/in/national-case-law/subhash-kumar-v-state-bihar.
- Right to Water Cover, (Feb. 17, 2021), https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/Right%20to%20water.pdf.
- Role of Courts in Ensuring Water Justice in India: Brasilia Declaration on Water Justice and Beyond, https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=nls_articles.
- Fifty Years Of Human Rights Protection In India – The Record Of 50 Years Of Constitutional Practice, (May 1, 2016), http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/14537EDF-CD7F-4E1B-8774-A66B1E8D0606.pdf.
CASES –
- BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA – MANU/SC/0051/1983, AIR 1984 SC 802
- SACHIDANAND PANDEY V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL – MANU/SC/0136/1987, AIR 1987 SC 1109
- RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI V. UNION OF INDIA – MANU/SC/0406/1988
- CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI V. STATE OF U.P. –MANU/SC/0364/1990
- KUNDORI LABOUR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. V. STATE OF BIHAR – MANU/BH/0045/1986, AIR 1986 PAT. 242
- BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR – (1990) 4 SCC 557
[1] (1996) 5 SCC 647
[2] MANU/SC/0051/1983
[3] MANU/SC/0136/1987
