http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, N.P. SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Court  by the  order dated  May 10, 1996 in I.A.29 [W.P(C) No.4677/85]  dealt with  the question  whether -  to preserve  environment   and  control   pollution  -   mining operations should  be stopped  within the  radius of  5 kms. from the  tourist resorts  of Badkhal  lake and Surajkund in the State  of Haryana. The Court gave five directions in the said order. Direction 4 is in the following terms:-      "We   further    direct   that   no      construction of  any type  shall be      permitted now  onwards within  5 km      radius  of  the  Badkhal  lake  and      Surajkund. All  open areas shall be      converted into green belts."      The Haryana  Pollution Control  Board (the  Board)  has notified  the   ambient  Air   quality  Standards   by   the notification dated  April 11,  1994. The  notification fixes limiting standards  of pollution  in  respect  of  sensitive areas, industrial areas and residential areas. The standards for  sensitive   areas  are  stringent  than  the  standards prescribed for  industrial and  residential areas. The Board has recommended  that the area of 5 kms around the periphery of a centre of tourism be notified as "sensitive area". With a view  to control  pollution and  save environment  in  the vicinity  of   Badkhal  and   Surajkund,  the  above  quoted direction was issued.      The  Municipal  Corporation  Faridabad,  Haryana  Urban Development Authority  and builders  having interest in, the area      have      approached      this      Court      for modification/clarification of the above quoted direction. It is contended  by learned  counsel appearing  for the parties that in  the  said  area  of  5  kms.  buildings  are  under construction, plots  have been  allotted/sold under  various Development-schemes and  the plot-holders  have even started construction. According to the learned counsel vested rights of several  persons are  likely  to  be  adversely  affected causing huge financial loss to them.      Although   the    direction   specifically   says   "no construction..................now   onwards................" and as  such the  areas which are already under construction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

would obviously  be excluded from the direction but in order to allay  the apprehensions  of the  property-owners in  the area, we are of the view that it is necessary to clarify the above direction.      Mr.  Kapil   Sibal,   appearing   for   the   Municipal Corporation Faridabad  has taken  lot of pains in having the area surveyed  and plans prepared with a view to find out as to  how   best  the   direction  of   this  Court  regarding development of  200 mts.  green belt  at one  km. radius all around the  boundaries of  the two lakes can be implemented. Mr. Sibal  and Mr.  Harish Salve  have placed one record two plans showing  the proposed  green belts around Badhkal lake and Surajkund.  The Plan  in respect  of Badhkal  is  marked Ex.A. Along  with the  Plan the detail of the khasra Nos. on which the  green belt  is to  be developed,  has been  given which is  marked as  Ex. A/l.  Similarly, the plan regarding Surajkund is  marked as  Ex. B  and the detail of the khasra Nos. is  marked as  Ex.B/l. It  is agreed by all the parties that the  green belt as proposed in Ex. A and Ex. B shall be developed in the two areas.      This Court by the order dated September 13, 1994 in I.A 18 [W.P(C)  No.4677/85] has  directed the Central Government to constitute  an authority  (The Authority)  under  Section b(3) of  the Environment  (Protection) Act,  1986. The  said authority shall  have the  jurisdiction  over  the  National Capital Region  as defined under the National Capital Region Planning Act,  1955. It  is thus  obvious that  the area  of Badkhal and  Surajkund, with  which we  are concerned, comes within the jurisdiction of the said authority.      Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some  of the  builders  has  vehemently  contended  that banning construction  within one km. radius from Badkhal and Surajkund is  arbitrary. According to him it is not based on technical reasons.  He has referred to the directions issued by the  Government of India under the Environment Protection Act has  contended that  the construction can at the most be banned  within  200  to  500  metres  as  was  done  by  the Government of  India in  the  coastal  areas.  He  has  also contended that restriction on construction only in the areas surrounding Surajkund and Badkhal lakes is hit by Article 14 of the  Constitution of India as it is not being extended to other lakes  in the country. We do not agree with Mr. Shanti Bhushan. The  functioning  of  systems  and  the  status  of environment cannot  be the  same in  the country. Preventive measures have  to be  taken keeping  in  view  the  carrying capacity of  the eco-systems  operating in the environmental surroundings  under  consideration.  Badkhal  and  Surajkund Lakes are  popular tourist  resorts almost  next door to the capital city  of Delhi.  We have  on record  the  Inspection Report  in   respect  of   these  lakes   by  the   National Environmental Engineering  Research Institute  (NEERI) dated April  20,  1996  indicating  the  surroundings,  geological features,  land   use  and  soil  types  and  archaeological significance of  the areas  surrounding the lakes. According to the  report Surajkund  lake impounds  water from rain and natural springs.  Badkhal lake  is an impoundment formed due to the  construction of an earthern dam. The catchment areas of these  lakes are  shown in  a figure  attached  with  the report. The  land use  and soil  types as  explained in  the report show that the Badkhal lake and Surajkund are monsoon- fed water  bodies.  The  natural  drainage  pattern  of  the surrounding hill  areas feed these water bodies during rainy season. Large  scale construction  in the  vicinity of these tourist resorts  may disturb  the rain water drains which in turn may  badly affect  the water level as well as the water

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

quality of these water bodies. It may also cause disturbance to the  acquifers which  are the source of ground water. The hydrology of the area may also be disturbed.      The two  expert opinions on the record - by the Central Pollution Control  Board no doubt on our mind that the large scale construction activity in the close vicinity of the two lakes is bound to cause adverse impact on the local ecology. NEERI has  recommended greenbelt at one KM radius all around the two  lakes. Annexures  A and  B. however.  show that the area within  the greenbelt is much lesser than one KM radius as suggested by the NEERI.      This Court  in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India  & Ors.  JT 1996 (7) S.C. 375 elaborately discussed the concept  of "sustainable  development"  which  has  been accepted as  part of the law of the land. It would be useful to quote the relevant part:      "The   traditional   concept   that      development and ecology are opposed      to  each   other,  is   no   longer      acceptable.            "Sustainable      Development" is  the answer. In the      International  sphere  "sustainable      Development" as  a concept  came to      be known  for the first time in the      Stockholm Declaration of 1972......      During   the   two   decades   from      Stockholm   to   Rio   "Sustainable      Development"   has   come   to   be      accepted as  a  viable  concept  to      eradicate poverty  and improve  the      quality of  human life while living      within the carrying capacity of the      supporting             eco-systems.      "Sustainable    Development"     as      defined by  the  Brundtland  Report      means "Development  that meets  the      needs  of   the   present   without      compromising  the  ability  of  the      future generations  to  meet  their      own needs"  We are, however, of the      view   that    "The   Precautionary      Principle" and  "The Polluter Pays"      principle are essential features of      "Sustainable   Development".    The      "Precautionary Principle" - in  the      context  of  the  municipal  law  -      means:      (i) Environmental  measures  by the      State Government  and the statutory      authorities     must   anticipated,      prevent and  attack the  causes  of      environmental degradation.      (ii) Where  there  are  threats  of      serious  and  irreversible  damage,      lack of scientific certainty should      not  be   used  as   a  Season  for      postponing  measures   to   prevent      environmental degradation.      (iii) The "Onus of proof" is on the      actor            or             the      developer/industrialist   to   show      that his  action is environmentally      benign ...      In  view  of  the  above  mentioned      constitutional    and     statutory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    provisions we have no hesitation in      holding  that   the   precautionary      principle  and  the  polluter  pays      principle   are    part   of    the      environmental law  of  the  country      even    otherwise     once    these      principles are  accepted as part of      the  Customary   International  Law      there would  be  no  difficulty  in      accepting  them   as  part  of  the      domestic law. It is almost accepted      proposition of law that the rule of      Customary International  Law  which      are not  contrary to  the municipal      law shall  be deemed  to have  been      incorporated in  the  domestic  law      and shall be followed by the Courts      of Law.  To support we may refer to      Justice H.R.  Khanna’s  opinion  in      Addl,  Distt.  Magistrate  Jabalpur      vs. Shivakant  Shukla (AIR  1976 SC      1207), Jolly George Varghese‘s case      (AIR 1980  SC 470)  and  Gramophone      Company‘s case (AIR 1984 SC 667)."      This Court  in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradoon   vs.    State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   (1987)   1 SCR 641 held as under:      "The consequence of this order made      by us  would be  that the lessee of      limestone quarries  would be thrown      out   of   business.   This   would      undoubtedly cause hardship to them,      but it  is a  price that  has to be      paid     for     protecting     and      safeguarding  the   right  of   the      people  to   live  in   a   healthy      environment      with       minimal      disturbance of  ecological  balance      and  without  avoidable  hazard  to      them, to  their cattle,  homes  and      agriculture and  undue  affectation      of air, water and environment."      In M.C.  Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 463 this Court held as under:      "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   exit,  a      tannery  which   cannot  set  up  a      primary treatment  plant cannot  be      permitted  to  continue  to  be  in      existence for  the adverse  effects      on the public.      Life,  public  health  and  ecology      have priority over unemployment and      loss of revenue problem".      "The Precautionary  Principle" has  been accepted  as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21. 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the  Constitution of  India give  a clear  mandate to the State  to   protect  and  improve  the  environment  and  to safeguard the  forests and  wild life  of the country. lt is the duty  of every  citizen of  India to protect and improve

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life  and to have compassion for living creatures. "The Precautionary Principle"  makes it  mandatory for  the State Government to  anticipate, prevent  and attack the causes of environment degradation.  We have  no hesitation  in holding that in  order to  protect the  two lakes from environmental degradation  it  is  necessary  to  limit  the  construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes.      In clarification  of direction 4 quoted above, we order and direct as under:      1.   No construction  of  any  type      shall be  permitted,  now  onwards,      within the green belt area as shown      in Ex. A and Ex. B. The environment      and ecology  of this  area shall be      protected  and   preserved  by  all      concerned. A very small area may be      permitted,  if   it  is  of  utmost      necessity,  for   recreational  and      tourism    purposes.    The    said      permission shall  be  granted  with      the   prior    approval   of   "The      authority", the  Central  Pollution      Control  Board   and  the   Haryana      Pollution Control Board.      2.   No construction  of  any  type      shall be permitted, now onwards, in      the areas  outside the  green  belt      (as shown  in Ex. A and Ex. B) upto      one km.  radius of the Badhkal lake      and Surajkund  (one kilometer to be      measured from the respective lakes)      . This direction shall however, not      apply   to    the   plots   already      sold/allotted prior to May 10, 1996      in  the  developed  areas.  If  any      unallotted plots  in the said areas      are still  available, those  may be      sold with  the  prior  approval  of      ’the authority’.  Any person owning      land in  the area  may construct  a      residential house  for his personal      use and  benefit. The  construction      on the  said  plots,  however,  can      only be  permitted upto  two and  a      half storeys  (ground, first  floor      and second  half floor)  subject to      the     Building     Bye-laws/Rules      operating   in    the   area.   The      residents of  the villages, if any,      within      this      area      may      extend/reconstruct their houses for      personal   use    but   the    said      construction shall not be permitted      beyond two and half storeys subject      to  Building   Bye-laws/Rules.  Any      building/house/commercial  premises      already under  construction on  the      basis of the sanctioned plan, prior      to  May   10,  1996  shall  not  be      affected by this direction.      3.   All  constructions  which  are      permitted under  directions 1 and 2      above shall  have the  clearance of      "The   Authority",    the   Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    Pollution  Control  Board  and  the      Haryana  Pollution   Control  Board      before  ’occupation   certificates’      are  issued  in  respect  of  these      buildings   by    the   authorities      concerned.      4.   All development  schemes,  and      the  plans   for   all   types   of      constructions relating to all types      of buildings  in the  area from one      km. to  5 km  radius of the Badhkal      lake and Surajkund (excluding Delhi      areas) shall have prior approval of      the Central Pollution Control Board      and the  Haryana Pollution  Control      Board.