Holding

The Court held that the authorities' failure to make sufficient effort to comply with the Supreme Court's relocation orders amounted to contempt, but the proceedings were closed without further sanction, directing compliance.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo motu contempt petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, examined the failure of the Union of India, the NCT of Delhi and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to comply with its earlier orders directing the relocation or closure of non‑conforming industries operating in residential areas of Delhi. The Court had previously ordered that such industries cease operations by 31 December 1996 and later mandated complete relocation by 31 December 1999, with a further deadline of 31 December 2000 for any remaining units. Affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary and the Municipal Commissioner expressed unqualified apologies but admitted that no industrial estates had been created, no plots allotted, and the polluting units had not been shut down. The Court found that the authorities had not made sufficient effort to implement the orders, indicating a lackadaisical attitude that endangered public health. Despite this finding of contempt, the Court chose not to impose further punitive measures, instead closing the contempt proceedings in the hope that the directives would be earnestly complied with. The petition was therefore discharged without further sanction.

Issues considered

Whether the Union of India, the NCT of Delhi and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are in contempt of the Supreme Court for failing to implement its orders regarding relocation of non‑conforming industries.
Whether an unqualified apology and stated steps taken by the authorities suffice to cure the contempt.
Whether the contempt proceedings should be continued, modified, or dismissed.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

Contempt of CourtEnvironmental LawPollutionNon‑conforming industriesMaster PlanSupreme Court ordersDelhiRelocationPublic healthSuo Motu

Judgment

M.C. MEHTA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 10,2001

[B.N. KIRPAL, DORAISWANY RAJU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B

Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I:

Contempt of Court-Non compliance with orders of Supreme Court-
Jndustries operating in residential areas in Delhi and non-conforming with C
Master Plan-Direction given by Supreme Court to stop their operation and
relocate them within a time frame-Not implemented by authorities-Contempt
proceedings initiated-Unqualified apology tendered by authorities concerned
and also indicating the steps taken in the matter-Held, the authorities have
not put in sufficient effort to comply with orders of relocation-With a hope D
that orders will be earnestly complied with, the contempt proceedings closed-
Constitution of India, Article I 29-Environmental la~1i.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.
300 of2000.
E
IN

I.A. Nos. 22 and 1206.

In Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985.

- --- (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
F

K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar (AC), K.K.
Venugopal, V.A. Mollta, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan. J.b. Jain, M.C.
Mehta, K.C. Kaushik: Krishan Mahajan, S.N. Terdol, Ms. Anil Katiyar, C.V.

-. Subba Rao, R.N. Verma, C. Radhakrishna, Ajay Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das, D.B.
Goburdhun, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Indra Sawhney, D.K.
Singh, R.C. Verma, Ms. Sheil Sethi, Vijay Panjwani, V.B. Saharya, Ramji
G

Srinivasan, (Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja) for Manik Karanjawala, R.S. Suri, D.N.
, Goburdhun, Sushil Kumar Jain. M.A. Chinnaswamy, L.L. Lahoty, Paban K.
Sharma. Himanshu Shekhar, Mukesh K. Giri, Balbir Singh Gupta, Pradeep
H
709

"
<
.-i·
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) 3 S.C.R.

A Gupta, D.B. Vohra, Rajesh Mittra, Ms. Kamlesh Jain, Yijay Kumar, Mohd. Arif,
Rakesh K. Shanna, N.K. Sahoo, Suresh Tripathy, D.N. Goburdhun, Ms. Pratibha
Jain, A.P. Dhamija and Pradeep Agarwal for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B By an order passed in April, 1996, this Court had directed that no non-
conforming industry shall be permitted to carry on its activity after 3 lst of
December, 1996. As a result thereof at least those industries which was
operating in residential areas, whose operation did not conform with the
provisions of the Master Plan, were required to stop their operation by 31st
C December, 1996.

Subsequent thereto orders were passed from time to time with regard
to relocation of the non-conforming industries. Ultimately on 8th September,
'
1999 a Division Bench of this Court directed that the entire process of
relocation of the industries should be completed by 31st December, 1999 and
D if the industries in the residential area could not be shifted and relocated for
any reason whatsoever by 31st December, 1999 then those industries shall be
closed down.

Thereafter various affidavits were filed on behalf of the Union of India,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and NCT, Delhi which show that there was
E a continuous breach of orders of this Court. Neither industrial estates had
been established nor plots allotted to enable relocation nor units working in
non-conforming areas including residential areas were shut down.

By reason of the non-compliance of the orders of this Court on 14th
November, 2000 notices were issued to the Chief Secretary, NCT, Delhi and
F also to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi to show cause why
they should not be punished for contempt for the continued inaction on the
part of the NCT, Delhi and for non-compliance of the various order passed
by this Court starting from 1996 and inch,1ding the orders dated 8th Septembe.r,
1999, 30th August, 2000 and 12th September, 2000 regarding the closing of
G the polluting units situated in the residential areas.

In the affidavit filed by Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, Chief Secretary, Government
of NCT. Delhi it has been stated that he assumed charge on 23rd March, 2000
as the Chief Secretary and has been diligently working towards ensuring
compliance of the orders of this Court. While indicating steps which has been
H taken with regard to the implementation of the said orders it has been stated
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 711

by him that he neither deliberately nor intentionally disobeyed any orders of A
this Court. Nonetheless he tendered an unqualified apology to this Court.

A somewhat similar affidavit has been filed by Shri S.P. Aggarwal,
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. While tendering unqalified
apology, he submitted that he did not disobey the orders of this Court and
has indicated in the said affidavit the steps which had been taken on an effort B
to comply with the directions issued by this Court for relocation of the non-
conforming industries from time to time.

We heard the learned counsel for the Contemners and are of the opinion
that the NCT, Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the other local C
authorities have not put in sufficient effort to comply with the orders of
relocation and there is clearly serious lapse on their part. There has been a
lack of effort and will on the part of the authorities giving us the impression
that wealth rather than, or at the expense of, health seems to be a greater
concern for them.
D
Orders were passed by this Court requiring the Executive to implement
the law within a time frame. This had become necessary as tolerance of
Illegality in the non-conforming use of land had increased the pollution to a
--t. hazardous level. It was the duty of the chief executive functionaries that
Executive functioned. Even ifthere had been no deliberate or wilful disregard
for the orders passed, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and E
approach towards them. The welfare of the silent majority of the citizens of
Delhi has been put on hold.

While we do not propose to take any further action in this matter but
such lethargic attitude, if it continues, may soon become contumacious. With
a hope that the orders will be earnestly complied with" we direct the closure F
of these contempt ·proceedings and discharge the Rule.

RP. Petition is Still Pending.