ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY

CONTROLLING/PREVENTING/PUNISHING
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES

Pradeep Kr. Bakshi

Secretary General
Asia Pacific Jurist Association

ECENA
3rd Train-the Trainer Programme on
Environmental Crime
November 10 12, 2009
INTRODUCTION

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

(River Beas Case)

Dismantling of Blue Lady at Alang,

Gujarat, India (Ship-Breaking Activity)
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(River Beas Case)

Facts
Supreme Court took notice of an article published in a
newspaper, wherein a private company Span Motels Pvt.
Ltd., had built a motel on the bank of River Beas on land
leased by the Indian Government in 1981.

SMPL, had a direct link to the family of Kamal Nath, a former

Minister of Environment and Forests.

SMPL had also encroached upon an additional area of land

adjoining this leasehold area and this was later leased out to
SMPL, when Kamal Nath was minister in 1994.
 SMPL used earth movers and bulldozers to turn the course of
the River Beas and create a new channel and divert the rivers
flow.

The course of the river was diverted to save the motel from
future floods.
 Decision
Supreme Court applied the constitutional provisions under
Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India and Forest
Conversation Act , 1980.

SC held that prior approval for the additional leasehold land

given in 1994 is quashed and the Government shall take over
the area and restore it to original condition.

SMPL to pay compensation to restore the environment and the

various construction undertaken on the bank of River Beas
must be removed and reversed and shall not encroach upon
any part of the river basin.
 SMPL shall not discharge untreated affluent into the river.

SC directed SMPL through its management shall show cause

why pollution fine in addition be not imposed.
 Ratio
Supreme Court based its ruling on the public trust doctrine,
under which the Government is the trustee of all natural
resources, which are by nature meant for public use and
enjoyment. Public trust doctrine is the part of the law of the
land.

SC applied the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays

Principle and held that one who pollutes the environment must
pay to reverse the damage caused by his acts.
RFSTNRP v. UoI & Ors.
(Dismantling of Blue Lady)
Facts
Blue Lady ex SS Norway was a passenger liner built in
France in 1961. It was a steam turbine driven vessel with a
power and rating of 30,000 KW and 40,760 HP. A luxurious
vessel during its golden period.

Blue Lady beached off the Alang coast on 15 16.08.2006.

Alang is located on the western coast of the Gujarat State of

India.

Alang is the largest ship recycling yard in the world and the
choicest ship-scrapping destination for the ship owners around
the world.
 SC had laid down norms concerning infrastructure capacity of
Alang to handle large volume of ship-breaking activity,
safeguards to be provided to the workers who were likely to
face health-hazard on account of the incidence of ship-breaking
activity, environmental impact assessment and strict regulation
of ship-breaking activity. SC constituted a Committee of
Technical Experts to submit a report on the said aspects.

In the case of Blue Lady the issues before SC and TEC

(Committee of Technical Experts) were to examine
A) Whether pre-conditions for dismantling have been complied with;
B) Whether 80% of the asbestos is reusable as in contended by RFSTNRP
C) What steps have been taken to control the environmental impact of
asbestos dust generated in the process of dismantling of Blue Lady.
 Decision
SC accepted the Report of TEC wherein TEC, approved the
Dismantling Plan and Recycling Management Plan and
recommended grant of permission for dismantling the Blue
Lady at Alang in accordance with the Recycling Plan
submitted by the Recycler M/s Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd.

SC observed that recycling is a key element of sustainable

development.

SC observed that we do not suggest discontinuing of ship-

breaking activity but it deserves to be strictly and properly
regulated.
 Ratio
SC upheld and applied the principle of precautionary principle,
polluter-pays principle, sustainable development and principle
of proportionality.

SC held on application of principle of sustainable development,

we need to keep in mind the concept of development on one
hand and the concepts like generation of revenue, employment
and public interest on the other.

Principle of Proportionality as in case of ship-breaking

activity of Blue Lady 700 workers would be employed, 41000
MT of steel would be made available.
To that extent, there will be less pressure on mining activity elsewhere.
Remedies & Enforcement

Injunctive Relief to halt the harmful activity;

Damages to compensate for harm suffered;

Orders of restitution or remediation;

Sanctions to punish the wrongdoer and to

deter future violations, and

Awards of costs and fees.

Conclusion

Indian Judiciary, as guardian of the rule of law, is

uniquely positioned to give environmental law force
and effect.

Judges can bring integrity and certainty to the

process of environment protection and help to
ensure environmental responsibility and
accountability within the government and the
private sector.
Conclusion

In environmental litigations, the anxiety of Indian

Judiciary is to find out appropriate remedies for the
environmental protection is given much importance.

Indian Judiciary appears to be ready to deliver

judgments that should result in greater
environmental protection or reduced environmental
harm.

Indian Judiciary has advanced the development of

environmental law by its traditional task of
interpreting and filling the gaps in the legal texts.
Thank you.

Pradeep Kr. Bakshi

General Secretary, APJA