M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH: CASE ANALYSIS

Audio Recording 17-Nov-2022 at 5:27:59 PM. M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH: CASE ANALYSIS.

Audio Recording 17-Nov-2022 at 5:29:23 PM. RELEVANT DETAILS.

final_6375f308a44c8204fc67fd0d_804964.mp4. FACTS OF THE CASE.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.11 PM. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.17 PM. ISSUES. Whether there was a violation of Art. 21? Whether the doctrine of “public trust”, “polluter pays principle”, and “precautionary principle” applicable to environmental PILs in India? Whether the construction that was undertaken by Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. legal and if yes, was it justified? Whether the motel was liable to pay compensation to reverse the environmental degradation caused? Whether the motel was liable to pay the pollution fine imposed in the Judgment dated December 13, 1996? Whether Mr. Kamal Nath was wrongly accused in the instant case?.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.25 PM 2. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.28 PM. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.40 PM #2 2. JUDGE’S OPINION.

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.50 PM. Thirdly, the Court opined that the “PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” as established in judicial precedents means that when the nature of the activity carried out is hazardous, then it is the duty of those carrying out such activity to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of whether there was reasonable care while carrying out the activity. With respect to issue (iii) – The Court stated that the leasehold area in possession of the motel was a part of the protected forest land owned by the State Government and, therefore, couldn’t be used by the Motel for additional construction projects. Since the motel had constructed wire crates on the bank of the river upstream, it was clear that the dredging and channelizing of the left bank was done on a large scale with the intention of keeping high-intensity flow away from the motel. With respect to issue (iv) – In order to protect "life," "environment," and "air, water, and soil" from pollution, the SC can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance but also for the victims who have suffered as a result of that disturbance. Furthermore, while exercising power conferred on the Court by virtue of Art. 32, the Court can award damages to those responsible for disrupting the ecological balance..

Movie on 17-11-22 at 2.55 PM 2. With respect to issue (v) The Court opined that the powers granted to the Court under Art. 142 were curative and, thus, could not be interpreted as authorising the Court to disregard the litigants' substantive rights and the already existing provisions dealing with the subject matter. Thus, the Court cannot order punishment mentioned in another Act without being tried for any of the offences contemplated by the Act. With respect to issue (vi) The land of the motel, which was given on lease by the government, was located on the bank of the Beas River, which frequently changes its natural course. thus, a s a result, the area, which was fragile and vulnerable, should not have been converted into private ownership by Mr Kamal Nath..

Movie on 17-11-22 at 3.00 PM. FINAL JUDGMENT. The Supreme Court held that the polluting industries were "absolutely liable" to compensate for the harm they caused to the community members in the affected area, the soil, and the underground water, and they were obligated to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants found in the affected areas. The Court ordered Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. – - not to discharge untreated toxic waste into the river; - not to encroach on, cover, or use any part of the river basin; - reparation of the environment and ecology of the area; - pollution caused in the riverbed and on the banks of Beas to be removed and reversed; and - compensatory damages to the victims who have suffered, and for restoration of ecological degradation..

Movie on 17-11-22 at 3.04 PM. The Himachal Pradesh government violated the public trust by leasing the environmentally sensitive land and will restore the affected area to its original natural state. The prior approval and the lease granted to the Motel were cancelled and set aside. The court directed the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board to inspect the Motel's pollution control devices/treatment plants and ensure that efficient waste discharge standards were met. The pollution fine imposed on the Motel contradicted the powers conferred to the Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution and was therefore set aside..

Movie on 17-11-22 at 3.07 PM. CRITICAL ANALYSIS. The Court examined the "polluter pays" and the doctrine of “public trust” principle's history, international development, and application in the national legal system. The "Polluter Pays" principle has been liberally interpreted to mean that absolute liability for ecological harm extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also to the cost of restoring the damaged environment as part of the "Sustainable Development" process. The Court held that without a competent and fair trial – additional fines could not be imposed, and if allowed, the Court would have been in contravention of Art. 142 of the Constitution. Introduction of the ‘PRINCIPLE OF DETERRENCE’ into the Indian Environmental Jurisprudence. Mr. Kamal Nath had erred in his duty - the moment he granted a lease to a private organization. Thus, the wide interpretation of the duties of the state has been taken into consideration..

Logo Description automatically generated.