M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India – Delhi Ridge Case

Background
The issue in this case was whether the mining activity in area up to 5 kms from the Delhi-
Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills causes
environmental degradation and what directions are required to be issued.
Issue Raised

1. Whether the mining activity in area up to 5 kilometers from the Delhi-Haryana

border on the Haryana side of the ridge and Aravalli hills causes environment
degradation?

2. Whether the mining activity deserves to be absolutely banned or permitted on

compliance of stringent conditions and by monitoring it to prevent the
environmental pollution?
Submissions and proceedings
Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) reported that explosives are being used for rock
blasting for the purpose of mining.Mining operations were resulting in soil erosion and
causing an ecological disaster. It was recommended by the HPCB that an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) should be prepared by mine lease holders for their mines and
mines should be made operative only after the approval of HPCB.The report recommended
a complete stoppage of mining activities within a radius of 5 kms from Badkal Lake and
Surajkund (a tourist place) in Haryana.The Haryana Government thereafter stopped all
mining operations on the basis of this report.
The mine operators raised objections to the recommendations of stoppage of mining
operations. According to them, the pollution that was generated by the mining activities
cannot go beyond a distance of 1 km and the stoppage was unjustified.
NEERI also submitted it report which recommended a complete closure of mining operation
in the concerned area.
On the basis of the reports submitted by NEERI and HPCB, the Supreme Court came to the
conclusion that the mining activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts are bound to cast serious
impact on the local ecology and environment. The mining brings extensive alteration in the
natural land profile of the area.The ambient air in the mining area gets highly polluted by the
dust generated by the blasting operations, vehicular movement, loading, unloading,
transportation and the exhaust gases from equipment and machinery used in the mining
operations.
In order to preserve environment and control pollution within the vicinity of two tourist
resorts, it was necessary to stop mining activity within 2 kilometer radius of the tourist resorts
of Badkal Lake and Surajkund. The Court further directed the Director of HPCB to enforce all
the recommendations of NEERI.The court stated that any failure to comply with the
recommendations may result in the closure of the mining operations and that the mining
leases within the area from 2 kms to 5 kms radius shall not be renewed without obtaining
prior No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the HPCB and the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB).
With respect to the second issue, the court directed the Environmental Pollution Central
Authority (EPCA)to submit a report with respect to the environment in the area after a
personal visit. The personal visit was to be made without any prior notice.
During the visit the EPCA found evidence of clear violation of some of the key conditions of
order of this court dated May 10, 1996.EPCA saw no evidence that this recommendation had
even been attempted to be followed.
On the basis of study and visit as well as the report of the Central Ground Water Board,
EPCA made the following recommendations –
 1. Ban on the mining activities and pumping of ground water in and from an area up
to 5 kms. from the Delhi-Haryana border

2. All efforts must be made to ensure that the local economy is rejuvenated, with the
use of plantations and local water harvesting based opportunities.

3. The Central Ground Water Board must be consulted urgently about what should
be done with the huge standing water in the area.

4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) should be asked to extend the
notification under the Environment (Protection) Actto the Faridabad part of the
Aravalli and ridge as well.

5. The mining area outside the 5 kms area must be demarcated and regulated.

6. Constant monitoring of the area must be done by a Central Government

agency. The environment management plan (EMP) for the mining area as well as
the conditions of the NOC should be made a public document.
The mines inspected by EPCA were below 150 feet (45 meters) and on checking it was
found that most mines were further operating at 20-100 feet (6-30 meters) below water
levels. This meant that the mines were abstracting water from the confined aquifer which
resulted in lowering of ground water levels.
The NOC given by the Central Pollution Control Board includes an explicit condition
regarding ground water: “That the mine owner will ensure that there is no discharge of
effluent or ground water outside lease premises. They must take measures for rain water
harvesting and reuse of water so as not to affect the ground water table in the areas. Most
importantly, it stipulates that there should be no mining operations shall be carried out in the
water table area.”
EPCA was concerned that if mining is allowed to continue in this area, it will have serious
implications for the groundwater reserve which is the only source of drinking water in the
area.
The Court held that the mining operations are hazardous to the nature and relied on T.N.
Godavarman case[1] to note that a balance has to be struck between development and
environment protection. The court also relied on Principle 15 of Rio Conference of 1992
relating to the applicability of precautionary principle which stipulates that where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as
a reason for proposing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation is also
required to be kept in view.
Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm
can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there
should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.
The Court relied on Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act
which talks about the commencement of mining activities. It was held that a mining lease
holder is not only required to comply with MMRD Act but other statutory provisions as well
such as Environment (protection) Act, 1986, Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act,
1981, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. Mere approval of the mining plan by Government of India, Ministry of Mines would not
absolve the lease holder from complying with the other provisions under other environmental
laws.
The court relied on Rules 31 to 41 in Chapter V of the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules, 1988 framed under Section 18 of the MMRD Act whichdeals with the
measures required to be taken by the lessee for the protection of environment from any
adverse effect of mining or irreversible consequences thereof.
These rules state that that holder of the mining lease shall take all precautions for the
protection of the environment while conducting mining operations. The holder must keep the
waste rocks, rejects and fines generated during mining operations in separate dump to
prevent air pollution. Wherever possible, the waste rock and overburden shall be deposited
back into the mines excavation with a view to restoring the land for its original use as far as
possible. If it is not feasible during mining operation, the waste dumps shall be suitably made
waste rock should be deposited.Air pollution due to fines, dust and smoke or gaseous
emissions during mining operations and related activities should be controlled and kept
within ‘permissible limits’ specified under various environmental laws of the country including
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 by the holder of mining lease.
The Court held that these rules should be strictly complied with for the protection of the
environment.
The Court relied on a report prepared by the Central Mine Planning & Design Institute
Limited (CMPDI).The Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) on being
asked by the Central Pollution Control Board to conduct a study of environmental problems
of Aravalli hills. The CMPDI recommended that the State government should improve inter-
departmental coordination among various government departments to achieve a common
goal which is ecological restoration of area affected by these mining operations. There
should be a master plan which indicates the proposed eco- restoration plan to compensate
the environmental degradation.
There were no objection raised to the recommendations of CMPDI and these
recommendations were accepted by the Supreme Court in principle.
Final Order

1. The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable development
and on compliance of stringent conditions.

2. The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case despite stringent
condition, there is an adverse irreversible effect on the ecology in the Aravalli hill
range area, at a later date, the total stoppage of mining activity in the area may
have to be considered. For similar reasons such step may have to be considered
in respect of mining in Faridabad District as well.

3. Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk of cancellation of mining
lease. The mining activity shall continue only on strict compliance of the stipulated
conditions. The matters are directed to be listed after reopening of courts after
summer vacation on receipt of the report from the Monitoring Committee.
Länsman et al v Finland

Indigenous herdsmen claimed stone quarrying interfered with traditional livelihoods and
therefore cultural rights; Committee found that right to culture contains some limit on
development activities that States Parties have no margin of discretion in development
activities; but mining not significant in this case enough to breach right; importance of
consultation in development.
Summary:
A permit was granted by the Central Forestry Board to a private company to quarry stone
from the Etela-Riutusvaara mountain. Indigenous members of the Muotkatunturi Herdsmen's
Committee asserted that the quarrying of the stone and its transportation through their
reindeer herding territory would violate their right to enjoy their culture under Article 27
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Committee confirmed its previous interpretation that economic activities (or means of
livelihood) come within the ambit of Article 27 if they are an essential element of the
minority's culture. They noted that such traditional means may evolve over time with modern
technology. State Party's had no margin of discretion in the choice of its development
activities; a State's freedom to pursue economic development is limited by its obligations
under article 27.

The Committee concluded that since the quarrying was limited to a small area it did not
‘substantially' infringe the Herdsmen's rights. Instead, it warned that any future approval of
large scale mining activities in the area used for reindeer herding may constitute a violation
of a minority's right to enjoy culture. The Committee emphasised the importance of
consultation before undertaking the activity, although it did not indicate whether this required
the minority's consent.
Keywords: Länsman et al v Finland, Communication No. 511/1992, UN GAOR, 52nd
Session, UN Doc. CCPR / C / 52D / 511 / 1992, opinion approved the 8 November 1994,
Poverty
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
This case is one of a number brought by Sami Indigenous people to the Committee
concerning permits granted by government ministries to companies to develop on ancestral
lands: e.g., Jouni E. Länsman v Finland, No. 671/1995. Finland's Supreme Court has
subsequently quashed at least 109 agreements made by the Ministry of Trade and
Commerce on the basis of cultural rights. However, political progress has been slow and, in
1998, the Human Rights Committee noted in concluding observations that “the proposed
Sami Act, by which forests within the Sami homeland would be turned into commons owned
by the Sami villages, has not passed the Parliament and that the issue of land rights of the
Sami have not been resolved.” In 2005, a case was filed with the Human Rights Committee
by Sami alleging significant harm in one herding area.
Groups involved in the case:
Advocate: Martin Scheinin Director of the Institute of Human Rights Abo Akademi University
Department of Law FIN -20500 Turku/Abo Finland Fax: (358 -2) 215 –4699 Email:
maschein@abo.fi
Significance of the Case:
The case is significant in establishing that the right of minorities to culture protects traditional
economic livelihoods, that there is a right to consultation before development activities
proceed and that no significant harm to culture can be caused by such activities.

Comunidad Yanomami. Caso Nº 7615. Resolución Nº 12/85. [ENG]

Petition related to mass presence of foreigners and mining development in indigenous land.
Human rights violations caused by the State's failure to provide adequate protection for the
safety and health of indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples' rights to receive special
protection.
Date of the Ruling:
Mar 5 1985
Forum:
Inter-American Comission on Human Rights
Type of Forum:
Regional
Summary:
A petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) against
the State of Brazil and in favor of the Yanomami indigenous community. The case was based
on the construction of a road and mining licenses granted in indigenous land, which had led
to a massive presence of foreigners in the said territory and had had serious effects on the
community's well-being, including the alteration of their traditional organization, emergence
of female prostitution, epidemics and diseases, forced displacement to lands unsuitable to
their ways of life, and death of hundreds of Yanomamis. The IACHR found the State was
responsible for failing to take timely and effective measures to protect the Yanomamis'
human rights. The IACHR concluded such failure had led to alterations in the community's
well-being and violations to the right to life, liberty, security, residence and movement, and to
the preservation of health and well-being. The IACHR considered that current international
law acknowledges the right of indigenous groups to special protection for the use of their
language, their religion and, in general, all elements essential to the preservation of their
cultural identity. The IACHR recommended the State, in line with domestic legislation, to
proceed to demarcate the Yanomami Park, to continue adopting preventive and remedial
sanitary measures aimed at protecting the life and health of the Yanomami, and to ensure
education, health protection and social integration programs aimed at the Yanomami were
carried out in consultation with the indigenous community, as well as expert scientific,
medical and anthropological advisors.
Keywords: Comunidad Yanomami. Caso Nº 7615. Resolución Nº 12/85, Health, Rights
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
In 1992, the land of the Yanomamis was finally demarcated as “Yanomami Park”. In a 1995
visit to Brazil, the IACHR was able to prove on site the presence of federal agency
surveillance and healthcare stations in the Yanomami area. However, the Yanomamis'
personal and collective integrity, as well as their environment, continue to be subject to
aggression by intruding miners. State protection is weak and inconsistent.
Groups involved in the case:
Petitioners: Yanomami indigenous community represented by The Indian Law Resource
Center (http://www.indianlaw.org), American Anthropological Association
(http://www.aaanet.org), Survival International (http://www.survival-international.org), and
Anthropology Resource Center.
Significance of the Case:
This is one of the first reports in which the IACHR outlined the doctrine on the right of
indigenous peoples to receive special protection aimed at enabling the preservation of their
cultural identity. The IACHR also acknowledged their lack of title over their ancestral land as
a key factor behind their situation of vulnerability.

Case of Guerra and Others v. Italy

This case dealt with the failure to provide local population with information about risk
factors and how to proceed in event of an accident at nearby chemical factory. The
applicants all lived in the town of Manfredonia. Approximately one kilometre away
was the Enichem agricoltura company’s chemical factory. In 1988 the factory, which
produced fertilizers, was classified as “high risk” according to the criteria set out in a
Presidential Decree regarding the major-accident hazards of certain industrial
activities dangerous to the environment and the well-being of the local population.
The applicants said that in the course of its production cycle the factory released
large quantities of inflammable gas – a process which could have led to explosive
chemical reactions, releasing highly toxic substances – and other dangerous
substances. The applicants made two complaints. Firstly, the authorities had not
taken appropriate action to reduce the risk of pollution by the chemical factory and to
avoid the risk of major accidents; that situation, they asserted, infringed their right to
life and physical integrity as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Secondly, the Italian State
had failed to take steps to provide information about the risks and how to proceed in
the event of a major accident, as they were required to do according to the
Presidential Decree; as a result there had been a breach of their right to freedom of
information laid down in Article 10 of the Convention. The court noted that the right of
public to receive information had been recognised by the Court on a number of
occasions in cases concerning restrictions on freedom of press. The facts of the
present case were, however, were clearly distinguishable from the aforementioned
cases. Freedom to receive information basically prohibited a government from
restricting a person from receiving information that others wished to impart to him –
that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in circumstances such
as those of the present case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate
information of its own motion. It therefore concluded that Article 10 was not
applicable. Regarding Article 8 the court emphasized that the direct effect of toxic
emissions on the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life meant
that Article 8 was applicable. The question was whether national authorities had taken
the necessary steps to ensure effective protection of the applicants’ right to respect
for their private and family life. Severe environmental pollution could affect the
individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as
to affect their private and family life adversely. The applicants had waited, right up
until production of fertilisers had ceased in 1994, for essential information that would
have enabled them to assess risks they and their families might run if they continued
to live around the factory. It concluded that the respondent State had not fulfilled its
obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life