Holding

A non‑riparian citizen may maintain a public interest action to enforce statutory duties of municipal authorities under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, and the Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to submit sewage‑treatment proposals and undertake specific remedial steps, while prohibiting stays of prosecutions and ordering environmental education measures.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest litigation filed by M.C. Mehta seeking relief from the severe pollution of the River Ganga at Kanpur, where 274.5 million litres of untreated sewage were being discharged daily. The petition raised the question of whether a non‑riparian citizen could sue for a public nuisance and enforce statutory duties under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to file the suit as a PIL because the pollution constituted a public nuisance affecting the health of the community. It directed the Mahapalika to submit sewage‑treatment proposals within six months, to take specific actions to curb dairy waste, enlarge sewer capacity, provide public latrines, and to stop the practice of dumping corpses, while also prohibiting stays of prosecutions under CrPC §482. Further, the Court ordered the Central Government to introduce environmental education in schools and suggested a nationwide ‘clean‑city’ week. The petition was ultimately disposed of after these directions were issued.

Issues considered

The locus standi of a non‑riparian citizen to file a public interest action for water pollution.
Whether the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika is liable under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the pollution of the Ganga.
The scope of judicial powers to direct municipal bodies to submit sewage‑treatment proposals and undertake remedial measures.
The propriety of granting stays of criminal prosecutions under CrPC §482 in pollution cases.
The duty of the Central Government to incorporate environmental education in school curricula.
The need for a coordinated ‘clean‑city/village’ programme across India.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 17
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916s. 189, s. 191, s. 7
Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959s. 114, s. 251, s. 388, s. 396, s. 397, s. 398, s. 405, s. 407
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 16, s. 17, s. 2, s. 20, s. 21, s. 23, s. 24, s. 3, s. 32, s. 33, s. 4

Subjects

public interest litigationwater pollutionenvironmental lawmunicipal liabilityGanga Action Plansewage treatmentpublic nuisanceenvironmental educationstay of prosecutionWater ActEnvironment Protection Act

Judgment

A M.C. MEHTA .)
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ,..
JANUARY 12, 1988

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH. JJ.)

In re. control, prevention and abatement of pollution of Ganga
water-In Kanpur, U. P. -Responsibility of the municipal body in
respect thereof

Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., 119871 4
c S.C.C.This
463 had issued certain directions with regard to the industries in
which the business of tanning was being carried on near Kanpur on the -l
banks of the River Ganga. On that occasion, the Court had directed
that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which
were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would
D be taken up next, and accordingly, the Court took up for consideration
this case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, since it was found that
Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga. "'
Under the laws governing the local bodies, the nagar Mahapalikas
and Municipal Boards were primarily responsible for the maintenance
E of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of ;,..;
their environments. Under the water (Prevention and Control of Polin-
lion) Act, 1974 (the 'Water Act') provisions had been made for the
establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water polio-
lion, etc. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, contained provisions '
relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water. y
F
Although Parliament and the State Legislature had thus enacted -,!(
laws, imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the munici-
palities for the prevention and control of pollution of water, no ade-
quate action had been taken pursuant to many of their provisions.
274.50 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into
G the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the ~
State of U.P. Sewer cleaning had never been done systematically in
Kanpur, and there was mal-functioning and choking of the city sewer- -->
age. Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the highest degree at
Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness and death due to infecti-
ous diseases arose out of water supplies. The petitioner filed this writ
H petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance
530
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 531

caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga, for protecting the A
lives of the people using the Ganga water.

Disposing of the petition, the Court,

HELD: The petitioner before the Court was no doubt not a
riparian owner. He was a person interested in protecting the lives of the B
people who made use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his
right to maintain the petition could not be disputed. The nuisance
caused by the pollution was a public nuisance, wide-spread in range and
indiscriminate in its effect, and it would not be reasonable to expect any
··particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the
community at large. The petition was entertained as a Public Interest c
Litigation. On the facts and.in the circumstances of the case, the Court
was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move the Court in
order to enforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the
municipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act, on account
of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for several years, the
water in the River Ganga at Kanpur had become so much polluted that D
it could no longer be used by the people for drinking or bathing. The
Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had to bear the major responsibility for
the pollution of the river near the Kanpur city. The construction of
certain works, undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur to
impron the sewerage system and prevent pollution of the water in the
river Ganga, were going on at a snail's pace. The Court expected the E
authorities concerned would complete those works within the target
dates mentioned in their counter-affidavits. The Court noticed that the
\
Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet submitted its proposals
' for sewage treatment works to the State Board constituted under
Water Act, and directed that the mal:apalika should submit its pro-
posals to the State Board within six months (from the date of this F
judgment). [551H; 552A-F]

The Court further directed;

(i) The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take action under .the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, G
or the relevant bye-laws made thereunder to prevent pollution of the
water in the river Ganga by waste accumulated at the Targe number of
dairies in Kanpur havin~ about 80,000 cattle. The dairies might either
be shifted outside the city so that the waste at the dairies did not ulti-
mately reach the river Ganga, or, in the alternative, the Mahapalika
might arrange for the removal of the waste by motor vehicles, in which H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A event the owners of the diaries could not claim any compensation. The
Mahapalika should immediately take action to prevent collection of
manure at private manure pits inside the city; [552G-H; 553A)

(ii) The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate
steps to increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies, so
B that sewage might be carried smoothly through the sewerage system,
and wherever sewera~e line was not yet constructed, steps should be
taken to lay it; [553B]

(iii) Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar J
Mahapalika to construct sufficient number of public latrines anll"'"11
C urinals to prevent defecation by people on the open land. The proposal
to levy any .charge for use of such latrines and urinals shall be dropped
as that :would be a reason for poor people not to use the public latrines
and urinals. The cost of maintenance of cleanliness of those latrines and
urinals had to be borne by the Mahapalika. [553C]

D The Court was of the view that since the problem of pollution of
the water in the river Ganga had become very acute, the High Court
should not .ordinarily grant stay of criminal proceedings in cases where
the .Board constituted under the Water Act initiated any proceedings to
prosecute industrialists or other persons who polluted the water in the
Ganga, as the stay orders on petitions under section 482 of the Code of
):', Criminal Procedure, 1973, frustrated the attempt of the Board to en-
force the provisions of the Water Act, and further, even ifsuch an order
of stay was made in any extraordinary case, the High Court should
dispose of the case within a short period, say about two months from the
date of the institution of the case, and further, should take up for
hearing all the cases where such orders had been issued under section
f 482, Cr.P.C., staying prosecutions under the Water Act. [553E·Gl
The Court further directed that the practice of throwing corpses
and semi-burnt corpses into the river Ganga should be immediately
brought to an end. Steps should be taken by the Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika and the police authorities to ensure that the dead bodies or
fr half-burnt bodies were not thrown into the river Ganga. [SS3H; S54A)

In future; application for licences to establish new industries
should be refused unless adequate provision had been made for the
treatment of trade effiuents flowing out of the factories, and immediate j
action should be taken against the existing industries found responsible .I
H for the pollution of water. [554B]
\.
f.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 533

Having regard to the grave consequences of the Pollution of water A
and air and need for protecting and improving the natural environment,
considered to be one of the fundamental duties under the Constitution,
it was the duty of the Central Government to direct all the educational
institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week
lessons on the protection and improvement of the natural environment B
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes. The
Central Government should get the text books written for the said
purpose and distributed to the educational institutions free of cost.
Training of teachers, who teach this subject, by the introduction of
ho rt term courses for such training shall also be considered. This
·should be done throughout India. [554C-E]
c
The above directions of the Court would apply mutatis mutandis
to all the other Mahapalikas and Municipalities, having jurisdiction
over the areas through which the river Ganga flows. [SSSC]

OBSERVATION: The children should be taught about the need D
~ for maintaining cleanliness, of the houses both inside and outside and of
the streets in which they live. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body
and healthy mind. [554EI

In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of cleanli-
.,,. ness of environments, the Government of India and the Governments of
E
the States and the Union Territories may consider the desirability .of
organising 'keep the city clean' week (Nagar Nirmalikarana Saptaha)
.; and 'keep the village clean' week (Gram Nirmalikarana Saptaha) in
every city, town and village throughout India at least once a year.
~l>nring that week, the entire city, town or village should be kept, as far
as possible, clean tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air.
F
-,.. The organisation of the week should be entrusted to the Nagar
Mahapalikas, Town Municipalities, Municipal Corporation, Village
Panchayats or such other authorities, having jurisdiction over the area
in question. If the authorities decide to organise such a week it may not
be celebrated in the same week throughout India hut may be staggered
, ~ depending upon the convenience of the particular city, town or village.
G
During that week, all the citizens, including the members of the execu-
\.- live, Parliament, State Legislatures and Judiciary may be requested to
co-operate with the local authorities and take part in the celebrations by
rendering free personal service. This would surely create a national
awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling allround
deterioration of the environment which ti~ today. (554F-H; !l§SA-B] H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
j
A M. (;. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463 and
Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese
Limited, [1953] Chancery 149.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1985.
B (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Petitioner-in-person.

B. Datta, Additional Solictor General, R.K. Jain, Vinod Bobd
R.N. Trivedi, K.N. Bhat, Tapash Ray, B.R.L. Iyenger, R.P. Singh,
C R.P. Kapur; Ravinder Narain, S. Sukumaran, C.B. Singh, S.K.
Dhingra, P.K. Jain, D.N. Goburdhan, Arvind Kumar, Ms. Laxmi
Arvind, Vinee.t Kumar. Deepak K. Thakur, T.V. S. N. Chari, Ms.
Vrinda Grover, Badri Nath, Rakesh Khanna, Mukul Mudgal, A.K.
'
\
Ghose, M.M. Gangadeb, l>robir Mirlra, Sushil Kumar Jain, Suryalt- \
ant, Pappy T. Mathews, Mrs, Marnta Kachhawaha, Mrs. Shobha
D Dikshit, G.S. Misra, S.R. Srivastava, Parijat Sinha, R. Mohan, Ms . ....
·Bina Gupta, Ranjit Kumar, Krishna Kumar, .R.C. Verma, Arnn
Minocha, Sri Narain, E.C. Agrawala, S.R. Setia, H.K. Puri, T.S.
Rana, Pramod Swamp, Ashok Grover, S. Markandeya, Swarup. Ms,
Lalita Kohli, K.C. Dua, Rajbirbal, R.A. Gupta and Ms. A. Subhas-
hi?i for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
VENKATARAMIAH, J. By our judgment dated September 22, I,., ~

1987 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 463,y
we issued certain directions with regard to the industries in which the
F business of tanning was being carried on at J ajmau near Kanpur on the c¥
banks of the river Ganga. On that occasion we directed that the case in
respect.. of the municipal bodies and the industries which were res·
ponsible for the. pollution of the water in the river Ganga would be
taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing. Accordingly,
we took up for consideration first the case against the municipal
G bodies. Since it was found that Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on ~·
the banks of the river Ganga, we took up for conSideratiml the case in -4
respect of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.

The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika is established under the provi-
sions cif the Uttar l>radesh ,Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyain, 1959
H (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'), Sub-section. (3) of section
M.C.. MEHTA v. V.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 535

1 of the Adhiniyam, which is to be found in its lst Chapter, provides A
that the lst Chapter of the Adhiniyam shall come into operation at
' -. once and the remaining provisions in relation to a city shall come into
operation from such date as the State .Government may by notification
in the official Gazette appoint in that behalf and different dates may be
appointed for different provisions. In exercise of the powers conferred
by the said sub-section and in continuation of a notification dated B
September 28, 1959 bringing into operation sections 579 and 580 of the
Adhiniyam, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased to issue a
notification dated January 18, 1960 appointing the lst day of February,
1960 as the date on which the remaining provisions of the Adhiniyam
a'.nd the three Schedules, appended thereto, would come into opera-
tion in relation lo the cities ofKanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra and c
Lucknow, as constituted under section 3 of the Adhiniyam. The duties
and powers of the Mahapalika and Mahapalika authorities are set out
in Chapter V of the Adhiniyam. Clauses (iii), (vii) and (viii) of section
114 of the Adhiniyam, which incorporates the obligatory duties of the
Mahapalika, read as follows:
D
"114. Obligatory duties of the Mahapalika-It shall
be incumbent on the Mahapalika to make reasonable and
adequate provision, by any means or measures which it is
lawfully competent to it to use or to take, for each of the
following matters, namely,-
E

(iii) the collection and rernoval of sewage, offensive
"'' matter and rubbish and treatment and disposal thereof in-
cluding establishing and maintaining farm or factory;
F

(vii) the management and maintenance of all
Mahapalika waterworks and the construction or acquisition
of new works necessary for a sufficient supply of water for
public and private purposes; G

(viii) guarding from pollution water used for human
consumption and preventing polluted water from being so
used;

....................................................,, H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A Sections 251, 388, 396, 297, 398, 405, and 407 of the Adhiniyam j
read as follows:

"251. Provision of means for disposal of sewage-
The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may, for the purpose of re·
ceiving, treating, storing, disinfecting, distributing or
otherwise disposing of sewage, construct any work within
or without the City or purchase or take on lease any land,
building, engine, material or apparatus either within or
without the City or enter into any arrangement with any
person for any period not exceeding twenty years for the
removal or disposal of sewage within or without the City.
c
388. Provision may be made by Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari for collection, etc., of excrementitious and pol-
luted matter-(1) The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may give
D public notice of his intention to provide, in such portion of
the City as he may specify, for the collection, removal and
disposal by Mahapalika agency, of all excrementitious and
polluted matter from privies, urinals, and cess-pools, and
thereupon it shall be the duty of the Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari to take measures for the daily collection, removal
and disposal of such matter from all premises situated in
such portion of the City.

(2) In any such portion as is mentioned in sub-section ,.,
(1) and in any premises, wherever situated, in which there
is a water-closet or privy connected with a mahapalika r/
drain, it shall not be lawful, except with the written perrnis·
sion of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, for any person who is ,l(
not employed by or on behalf of the Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari to discharge any of the duties of scavengers.

0
396. Removal of carcasses of dead animals-( I) It
shall be the duty of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to provide -4
for the removal of the carcasses of all animals dying within
the City.

H (2) The occupier of any premises in or upon which
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 537

any animal shall die or in or upon which the carcass of any
animal shall be found, and the person having the charge of
A
any animal which dies in the street or in any open place.
shall, within three hours after the death of such animal or.
if the death occurs at night within three hours after sunrise.
report the death of such animal at the nearest office of the
Mahapalika Health Department. B

(3) For every carcass removed by mahapalika
agency, whether from any private premises or from public
street or place, a fee for the removal of such amount as
shall be fixed by the Mukhya Nagar A:dhikari shall be paid
by the owner of the animal, or, if the owner is not known.
by the occupier of the premises in or upon which, or by the c
person in whose charge, the said animal died.

397. Prohibition of cultivation, use of manure, or
irrigation injurious to health-If the Director of Medical
and Health Services or the Civil Surgeon or the Nagar D
Swasthya Adhikari certifies that the cultivation of any
description of crops or the use of any kind of manure or the
irrigation of land in any specified manner-

(a) in a place within the limits of a City is injurious or
facilitates practices which are injurious to the health of E
persons dwelling in the neighbourhood, or

(b) in a place within or beyond the limits of a City is
likely to contaminate the water-supply of such City or
otherwise render it unfit for drinking purpose,
F
the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may by public notice prohibit
the cultivation of such crop, the use of such manure or the
use of the method of irrigation so reported to be injurious,
or impose such conditions with respect thereto as may pre-
... vent the injury or contamination:
G
Provided that when, on any land in respect of which
such notice is issued, the act prohibited has been practised
in the ordinary course of husbandry for the five successive
years next preceding the date of prohibition, compensation
shall be paid from the Mahapalika Fund to all persons
interested therein for damage caused to them by such H
prohibition.
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.

A 398. Power to require owners to clear away noxious
vegetation-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may, by notice,
require the owner or occupier of any land to clear away and
remove any vegetation or undergrowth which may be in-
jurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood.

B

405. Power to require removal of nuisance arising

c
from tanks, etc.-The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may by
notice require the owner or occupier of any land or build,.
ing to cleanse, repair, cover, fill up or drain off a private
well, tank, reservoir. pool, depression or excavation
-
therein which may appear to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari
to be injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood:

Provided that the owner or occupier may require the
Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to acquire at the expense of the
D Mahapalika or otherwise provide, any land or rights in land
necessary for the purpose of effecting drainage ordered
under this section.

407. Any place may at any time be inspected for
purpose of preventing spread of dangerous disease-The
Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time, by day or day
night, without notice or after giving such notice of his
intention as shall in the circumstances, appear to him to be
reasonable, inspect any place in which any dangerous ,I"'
disease is reputed or suspected to exist, and take such mea-
sures as he shall think fit to prevent the spread of the said
F disease beyond such place."

The above provisions deal with the specific duties of the Nagar
Mahapalika or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari appointed under the
Adhiniyam with regard to the disposal of sewage and protection of the
environment in or around the City to which the Adhiniyam applies.
<!J There are almost similar provisions in sections 7, 189, 191 and other
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 which applies
to the smaller municipal bodies. The Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and
Sewerage Act, 1975 imposes statutory duties on the authorities men-
tioned therein regarding the provision of water supply to the cities and
towns and construction of sewerage systems in them. The perusal of
H these provisions in the laws governing the local bodies shows that the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 539

Nagar Mahapalikas and the Minicipal Boards are primarily responsi- A
ble for the maintenance of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdic-
tion and the protection of their environment. We have, in the judg-
ment delivered by us on September 22, 1987, briefly referred to the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act No. 6 of
1974) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Water Act') in which provisions
B
have been made for the establishment of the Boards for the prevention
and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such
Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connec-

... ted therewith. In the Water Act the expressions 'pollution', 'sewage
~ffluent', 'sewer', 'stream', and 'trade effluent' are defined as follows:

"2 Definitions-In this Act, unless the context C
otherwise requires-

......... ~- ........................................ .

(e) 'pollution' means such contamination of water or
such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological pro- D
perties of water or such discharge of any sewage or treade
effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance
into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may or is
likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or
injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, com-
mercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or E
to the life and health of animals or plants or of acquatic
organisms;

(g) 'sewage effluent' means effluent from any sewer- F
age system or sewage disposal works and includes sullage
from open drains;

(gg) 'sewer' means any conduit pipe or channel,
open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent;
G

(j) 'stream' includes-

(i) river;
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 2 S.C.R.

A (ii) water cour~e (whether flowing or for the
time being dry);

(iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);

(iv) sub-terranean waters;
B
(v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the
case may be, to such point as the State may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf; _,..

(k) 'trade effluent' includes any liquid, gaseous or
c solid substance which is discharged from any premises used
for carrying on any trade or industry, other than domestic
sewage.

Section 3 and 4 of the Water Act provide for the constitution of
D the Central Board and State Boards respectively. A State Board has
been constituted under section 4 of the Water Act in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Section 16 of the Water Act sets out the functions of the
Central Board and section 17 of the Water Act lays down the functions
of the State Board. The functions of the Central Board are primarily
advisory and supervisory in character. The Central Board is also re-
E quired to advise the Central Government on any matter concerning
the prevention and control of water pollution and to co-ordinate the
activities of the State Boards. The Central Board is also required to
provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards, carry
out and sponsor investigations and research relating to problems of
water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollu-
F tion. The functions of the State Board are more comprehensive. In
addition to advising the State Government on any matter concerning
the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution, the State
Board is required among other things (i) to plan a comprehensive
programme for the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of
streams and wells in the State and to secure the execution thereof, (ii)
G to collect and disseminate information relating to water pollution and
the prevention, control or abatement thereof; (iii) to encourage, con-
duct and participate in investigations and research relating to problems
of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pol-
lution; (iv) to inspect sewage or trade effluents, works and plants for
the treatment of sewage and trade effluents; (v) to review plans, speci-
H fications or other data relating to plants set up for the treatment of
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 541

water, works for the purification thereof and the system for the dis- A
posal of sewage or trade effluents or in connection with the grant of
> ' any consent as required by the Water Act; (vi) to evolve economical
and reliable methods of treatment of sewage and trade effluents,
having regard to the peculiar conditions of soils, climate and water
resources of different regions and more especially the prevailing flow
characteristics of water in streams and wells which render it impossible B
to "attain even the minimum degree of dilution; and (vii) to lay down
standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be discharged
into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair
weather dilution available in that stream and the tolerance limits of
·pollution permissible in the water of the stream, after the discharge of
such effluents. The State Board has been given-certain executive'pow- C
ers to implement the provisions of the Water Act. Sections 20, 21 and
·"' 23 of the Water Act confer power on the State Board to obtain infor-
mation necessary for the implementation of the provisions of the
Water Act, to take samples of effluents and to analyse them and to
follow the procedure prescribed in connection therewith and the
power of entry and inspection for the purpose of enforcing the provi- D
sions of the Water Act. Section 24 of the Water Act prohibits the use
of stream or well for disposal of polluting matters etc. contrary to the
provisions incorporated in that section. Section 32 of the Water Act
confers the power on the State Board to take certain emergency mea-
sures in case of pollution of stream or well. Where it is apprehended by
a Board, that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by E
reason Of the disposal of any matter therein or of any likely disposal of
-
.....
any matter therein, or otherwise, the Board may under section 33 of
the Water Act make an application to a court not inferior to that of a
Presidency.Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, for restraining
the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.
F
> The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which has also been
referred to in out earlier judgment, also contains certain provisions
relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water
and one significant provision in that Act is what is contained in section
17 thereof, which provides that where an offence under that Act is
• , committed by any Department of Government, the Head of that G
Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and is liable to
;. be punished.

It is unfortunate that although Parliament and the State Legisla-
ture have enacted the aforesaid laws imposing duties on the Central
and State Boards and the municipalities for prevention and control of H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
_)
A pollution of water, many of those provisions have just remained on
paper without any adequate action being taken pursuant thereto.
After the above petition was filed and notice was sent to the Uttar r -"
Pradesh State Board constituted under the Water Act, an affidavit has
been filed before this Court by Dr. G.N. Misra, Scientific Officer of
B the U.P. Pollution Control Board setting out the information which
the Board was able to collect regarding the measures taken by the
several local bodies and also by the U.P. Pollution Control Board in
order to prevent the pollution of the water flowing in the river Ganga.
A copy of the report relating to the inspection made at Kanpur on
23.11.87/24.11.87 by Shri Tanzar Ullah Khan, Assistant Environmen-. ..,.
ta! Engineer and Shri A.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer enclosed to the
C counter-affidavit as Exhibit K-5 reads thus:

"The inspection made on 23.11.87 /24.1.87 alongwith
Sri A.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer. Following are the facts
observed at the time of inspection.
I)
1. Kanpur town is situated on the southern bank of
river Ganges. 1

2. The present population of the town is approxima-
tely 20 lacs.
E 3. The city is covered with piped water supply.

4. The city has developed between river Ganges on
the north side and river Pandu on the south side. G.T.
Road divides the city into two halves.
F
In the north side most of the area is covered by sewer-
age system and the sullage/sewage is discharged without
treatment into river Ganges through 17 nalas including
sewerage by-pass channel at J ajmau.

In the south side there is no sewerage system and the
G sewage/sullage are discharged without treatment into river
Pandu through 5 nalas. River Pandu joins river Ganges
near Fatehpur(Sketch enclosed).

5. The Kanpur Nagar mahapalika has not yet submit-
H ted any proposal of sewage treatment works to the Board.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.! 543

6. Mr. Ikramur Rahman, A.E. Nagar Mahapalika
A
told the Kanpur town is covered under Ganga Action Plan
and following are the proposals-

(A) U.P. !al Nigam

(1) Re-modelling of sewage pumping station at B
Jajmau and improvement to sewage farm.

(2) Nala Tapping.

(3) Sewage Treatment Plant.

(B)Kanpur !al Sansthan
c

(1) Cleaning of Trunk and main sewers.

(C) Integrated Environmental and sanitary Engineer
project is being executed under the Dutch Assistance in Ja- D
jmauArea.

(1) Crash Programme (is to remove deficiencies in
the existing sanitary facilities)

(2) Laying of Industrial sewer. E

(3) U .A.S.B. Sewage Treatment Plant.

Sd/- Sd/-
(A.K. TIWARI) (TANZAR ULLAH KHAN)
J.E. ASSTT. ENVIRONMENTAL F
ENGINEER."

Appendix A/1 to 'An Action Plan for Prevention of Pollution of
the Ganga' gives the following particulars relating to the quantity of
" sewerage generated in the City of Kanpur which is discharged into the
river Ganga and other relevant matters: G

KA NPUR

Population Estimated water Estimated sewage Treatment
in 1981 supply in 1981 generated (70% of
the water H
supply to the city
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A 16.39 lacs 392.14 million 274.50 million Nil
litres a day litres a day

J
It is thus seen that 274.50 million litres a day of sewage water is
being discharged into the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which
B is the highest in the State of Uttar Pradesh and next only to the city of
Calcutta which discharges 580.17 million litres a day of sewage water
into the river Ganga. Para 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri Jai Shanker
Tewari, Executive engineer of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika reads thus: ..

"4. That the pollution in river Ganga from Kanpur is
occurring because of following reasons:
c
(i) About 16 nalas collecting sullage water, sewage,
textile waste, power plant waste and tannery effluents used
to be discharged without any treatment into the river.
However some N alas have been trapped now.
D
(ii) The dairies located in the city have a cattle popu-
lation of about 80.000. The dung, fodder waste and other
refuse from this cattle population is quantitatively more
than the sullage from the city of human population of over
20 lakhs. All this finds its way into the sewerage system and
E the nalas in the rainy season. It has also totally choked
many branches of sewers and trunk sewers resulting in the
overflow of the system.

(iii) The night soil collected from the unsewered
areas of the city and thrown into the nalas.
F
(iv) There are more than 80 tanneries in Jajmau
whose effluent used to be directly discharged into the river.

(v) The total water supply in Kanpur is about 55 mil-
lion gallons pe~ day. After use major part of it goes down
G the drains, nalas and sewers; sewage is taken to Jajmau
sewage pumping station and a part of it is being supplied to
sewage farms after diluting it with raw ganges water and
the remaining part is discharged into the river.

(vi) Dhobi Ghats.
H
(vii) Defecation by e~onomically weaker sections."
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, l.) 545

,._ The affidavit further states that the U.P. Ja! Nigam, the U.P. Water A
Pollution Control Board, the National Environmental Engineering
, Research Institute, the Central Leather Research Institute, the
Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, the Kanpur Development Authority and
the Kanpur J al Sans than have started taking action to minimise the
pollution of the river Ganga. It is also stated therein that the finaneial
assistance is being provided by the Central Ganga Authority through B
Ganga Project D.irectorate, State Government, the World Bank, the
Dutch Government etc. for implementing the said measures. The said
affidavit gives information about the several works undertaken at
Kanpur for minimising the pollution of the river Ganga. It also states
that Rs.493.63 lacs had been spent on those works between the years
1985 and 1987 and that the total allocation of funds by the Central C
Ganga Authority for Kanpur is Rs.3694.94 lacs and that upto the end
.- of .tb.e current financial year it is proposed to spend Rs.785.58 lacs
( 1985 to 1987-88) towards various schemes to be completed under
Ganga Action Plan. The affidavit points out that in Kanpur City sewer
cleaning has never been done systematically and in a planned way
except that some sewers were cleaned by the U .P. Jal Nigam around D
!970. The main reasons for mal-functioning and choking of the city
sewerage, according to the affidavit, are (i) throwing or discharging of
solids, clothes, plastics, metals etc. into the sewerage system; (ii)
throwing of cow dung from dairies which are located in every part of
the city which consists of about 80,000 cattle; (iii) laying of under-sized
sewers specially in labour colonies; (iv) throwing of solid wastes and E
malba from construction of buildings into sewers through manholes;
( v) non-availability of mechanical equipment for sewer cleaning
J. works; and (vi) shortage of funds for proper maintenance. It is
. asserted that the discharge of untreated effluents into the river Ganga
'--..: will be stopped upto 80% by March, 1988.
F
Ii> Shri M.C. Mehta, the petitioner herein, drew our attention to
the Progress Report of the Ganges Action Plan (July 1986-January
1987) prepared by the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Council
of Scientific & Industrial Research. At page 20 of the said report the
details of the analysis of the Ganga water samples collected during
~ August, 1986 to January, 1987 from Uttar Pradesh region are fur- G
nished. That report shows that the pollution of the water in the river
.... Ganga is of the highest degree at Kanpur. The Ganga water samples
taken at Kanpur show that the water in the river Ganga at Kanpur
consisted of 29.200 units (mg/ml) of iron in the month of August, 1986
when the ISI limit for river water is 0.3 and 0.900 (mg/ml) of
manganese whereas the WHO limit of manganese for drinking water is H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 2 S.C.R.

A 0.05. The Progress Report for the period February 19&7-June. 1987 ~
of Microlevel Intensive Monitoring of Ganga under Ganga Action
Plan describes the samples of the water taken from the river Ganga at F
Kanpur thus:

"B.O.D. (Bio Oxygen Demand) values are found to
B
be higher than prescribed values of LS.I. C.O.D. (Chemi-
cal Oxygen Demand) values are also found to be higher.
These values clearly indicate that river water is not fit for
drinking, fishing and bathing purposes.

Table II further shows that Total Coliform and Fecal
c Coliform bacteria are always found very high. This is due
to disposal of large quantity of untreated municipal waste
into river Ganga. These high values of bacteria indicate
that water is not fit for drinking, bathing and fishing
purpose.
D To improve quality of water in Ganga', all nullahs
should be trapped immediately and raw water should be
treated conventionally at water works and disinfected by
chlorination."
(underlining by us)
E In the concluding part of the said Progress Report it is stated
thus:

"The Ganga is grossly polluted at Kanpur. All nu!- ,.
labs are discharging the polluted waste water into river )-- , -
Ganga. But Jajmau by pass channel, Sismau, Muir Mill,
F Golf Club and Gupta Ghat nullahs are discharging huge
quantities of polluted waste water, To improve the water
quality of Ganga all major nullahs should be diverted and
treated. Combined treatment should be provided for
Jajmau tanneries. Effluent treatment plants should be
installed by all major polluting industries."
G
It is needless to say that in the tropical developing countries a
large amount of misery, sickness and death due to infectious diseases ~
arises out of water supplies. In I.all's Commentaries. on Water and Air
Pollution Laws (2nd Edition) at pages 331 and 333 it is observed thus:
H "In the tropics, we cannot safely take such a limited
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. (VENKATARAMIAH. J.l 547

view. Such Water·borne <focases as malaria, schistosomi- A
asis, guinea worm and yellow fever are either terrible
scourges of, or threats to, many tropical populations. The
hazards from bad water are thus much greater. Poverty is
much more serious for many tropical areas; in the rural
areas-where most people live-anrl around the edges of
the cities, which are the fastest-growing communities, most ll
people cannot afford a conventionally good water supply at
present, and the choice in the short run may be between

~-
doing nothing and providing somewhat improved supply. If
an ideal water system is not possible, there are options as to
what needs should be met by the partial improvements. To
make the right decisions we need again the broad picture of c
water-related diseases. So, because of these two tropical
characteristics-warmth and poverty-a wider view than in
temperate lands is necessary.(p.331)

................................ ' ..... '.' ...........
D
Water-borne diseases-The classical water•bornc dis-
eases are due to highly infective organisms where only
rather few are needed to infect someone, relative to the
levels of pollution that readily occur. The two chief ones
have a high mortality if untreated and are diseases which a
community is very anxious to escape: Typhoid and cholera. E
Both are relatively fragile organisms whose sole reservoir
'
~ is man.
'-(
These two diseases occur most dramatically as the
'common source out·break' where a community ·.vater sup-
ply gets contaminated by faeces from d person suffering fl
from, or carrying, one of the infections. Many people drink
the water and a number of these fall ill from the infection at
about the same time.

· Typhoid is the most cosmopolitan of the classical
water-borne infections. Jn man it produces a severe high G
~· fever with generated systemic, more than intestinal, symp·
toms. The bacteria are ingested and very few are sufficient
to infect. The typhoid patient is usually too JlI to go out
polluting the water and is not infective prior to falling sick.
However, a small proportion of those who recover clini-
cally continue to pass typhoid bacteria in their faeces for H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A months or years; these carriers are the source of water-
borne infections. Gallstones predispose to the carrier state
as the bacteria persist in the inflamed gall bladder. In the
tropics, lesions of Schistosoma haematobium in the bladder
also act as nide of infection, producing urinary typhoid
carriers, whilst rectal schistosomiasis combined with
typhoid leads to a persistent sever fever lasting many
months. Typhoid bacteria survive well in water but do not
multiply there.

Cholera is in some ways similar to typhoid, but i ,
causative bacteria are more fragile and the clinical course is
extremely dramatic. In classical cholera the onset of diar-
c rhoea is sudden and its volume immense so that the un-
treated victim has a high probability of dying from dehyd-
ration within 24 hours or little more.

Several other infections are water borne but are less
D important than typhoid and cholera. Leptospirosis, due to
a spirochaete, has its reservoir in wild rodents which pol-
lute the water. Leptospis can penetrate the skin as well as
being ingested. They produce jaundice and fever, called
'Weil's disease, which is severe but not common."

E The amount of suffering which the members of the public are
likely to undergo by using highly polluted water can be easily gathered
from the above extract. ,.
In the book entitled 'Water Pollution and disposal of Waste)- .
Water on Land' (1983) by U.N. Mahida. I.S.E. (Retd) the problem of
F water pollution, 'tbe benefits of control of pollution and the urgency of ~
the problem have been dealt with. At pages I, 2, 4 and 5 of the said
book it is obseryed thus:

"As long as the human population was small and
communities were scattered over large ar;:as of land, the ;..
G disposal of human wastes created no problems. People
could defecate in areas surrounding vill.ages and other habi- .. ,a
taiions and leave it to nature to dispose of the waste by ~
assimilation in the. surrounding land and air. But as com-
munities became more concentrated and villages and towns
grew, such a mode of disposal by natural agencies came to
H be. replaced by organ,ised disposal, though again through
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 549

the agency of natural land and soil columns. The collection A
of human excreta and its disposal in earthen trenches was
resorted to by many towns and adopted the basket privy
system.

The introduction of a system of water-borne sewage
created new problems in the disposal of human wastes, as B
now along with the earlier problem of getting rid of solid
wastes, i.e., human excreta, the problem of the disposal of
the water employed for the removal of human wastes had
also to be faced. This was the origin of the problem of
sewage disposal. At first, the natural instinct was to chan-
nelize the sewage-the soiled water-to natural streams c
and rivers. For a time this mode of disposal was even
considered quite efficacious. Such methods did not create
difficulties as sewage discharges were small as compared to
the stream flow. But with the increased discharge of prog-
ressively large quantities of sewage, polluted streams
became a serious menace to public health. D

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

The introduction of modern water carriage systems
transferred the sewage disposal from the streets and the
surroundings of townships to neighbouring streams and E
rivers. This was the beginning of the problem of water
~
pollution. It is ironic that man, from the earliest times, has
tended to dispose of his wastes in the very streams and
~ rivers from which most of his drinking water is drawn.
Until quite recently this was not much of a problem, but
.. with rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, the problem
of the pollution of natural waters is reaching alarming
F

proportions.

The most disturbing feature of this mode of disposal ¥
.:.,\
is that those who cause water pollution are seldom the

,." people who suffer from it. Cities and industries discharge G
their untreated or only partially treated sewage and indust-
rial waste waters into neighbouring streams and thereby
remove waste matter from their own' neighbourhood. But
in doing so, they create intense pollution in streams and
rivers and expose the downstream riparian population to
dangerously unhygienic conditions. In addition to the with- H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988! 2 S.C.R.
).
drawal of water for downstream towns and cities, in many
A
developing countries, numerous villages and riparian
agricultural population generally rely on streams and rivers t
for drinking water for themselves and thdr cattle, for cook-
ing, bathing, washing and numerous other uses. It is thus
riparian population that specially needs protection from
B the growing menace of water pollution. (pages 1and2)

....................................................
BENEFITS OF CONTROL

The benefits which result from the prevention of
c water pollution include a general improvement in the
standard of health of the population, the possibility of
--r
restoring stream waters to their original beneficial state and
rendering them fit as sources of water supply, and the
maintenance of clean and healthy surroundings which
0 would then offer attractive recreational facilities. Such
-<
measures would also restore fish and other aquatic life.

Apart from its menace to health, polluted water·con-
siderably reduces the water resources of a nation. Since the
total amount of a country's utilisable water remains essenti-
E ally the same and the demand for water is always increasing,
schemes for the prevention of water pollution should,
*
wherever possible, make the best use of treated waste ~
waters either in industry or agriculture. Very often such
processes may also result in other benefits in addition to ~
mere reuse. The application of effluents on agricultural 1
f land supplies not only much needed water to growing crops
but also manurial ingredients; the recovery of commer-
cially valuable ingredients during the treatment of indust-
*
rial waste waters often yields by-products which may to
'( some extent offset the cost of treatment.
/r

/.
G If appropriate financial credits could be calculated in
· respect of these and other incidental benefits, it would be
i-
apparent that measures for the prevention of pollution are
not unduly costly and are within the reach of all nations,
advanl;tld or developi113o It is fortunate that people are,~-
coming more reoeptive to the id~· of sharing the financial
H burden for lessening pollution. It is now recognised in most
M.C. MEfITA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 551

countries that it is the responsibility of industries to treat
A
their trade wastes in such a way that they do not deteriorate
the quality of the receiving waters, which otherwise would
make the utilisation of such polluted waters very difficult or
costly for downstream settlers.

URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM B

The crucial question is not whether developing
countries can afford such measures for the control of water
pollution but it is whether they can afford to neglect them.
The importance of the latter is emphasised by the fact that
in the absence of adequate measures for the prevention or
control of water pollution, a nation would eventually be c
confronted with far more onerous burdens to secure whole·
some and adequate supplies of water for different
purposes. If developing countries embark on suitable
pollution prevention policies during the initial stages of
their industrialisation, they can avoid the costly mistakes D
committed in the past by many developed countries. It is,
• however, unfortunate that the importance of controlling
pollution is generally not realised until considerable dam·
age has already been done; (Pages 3 and 4)"

In common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by E
an in junction in an action brought by a reparian owner who has
suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a river caused by
~ the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated
sewage from discharging such sewage into the river. In Pride of Derby
'"--< and Derbyshire Angling Association v. British Celanese Ltd., [1953]
Chancery 149 the second defendant, the Derby Corporation admitted F
that it had polluted the plaintiff's fishery in the River Derwent by
discharging into it insufficiently treated sewage, but claimed that by
the Derby Corporation Act, 1901 it was under a duty to provide a
sewerage system, and that the system which had accordingly been
provided had become inadequate solely from the increase in the popu·
' lation of Derby. The Court of Appeal held that it was not inevitable G
that the work constructed under the Act of 1901 should cause a
r· nuisance, and that in any case the Act on its true construction did not
authorise the commission of a nuisance. The petitioner in the case
before us is no doubt not a riparian owner. He is a person interested in
protecting the lives of the people who make use of the water flowing in
the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be dis- H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.

A puted. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a
public nuisance, which is wide spread in range and indiscriminate in its
effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person
to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large.
The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On
the facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the view that
B the Petitioner is entitled to move this Court in order to enforce the
statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities
and the Boards constituted under the Water Act. We have already set
out the relevant provisions of the statute which impose those duties on ~
the authorities concerned. On account of their failure to obey the
statutory duties for several years the water in the river Ganga at·
c Kanpur has become so much polluted that it can no longer be used by
the people either for drinking or for bathing. The Nagar Mahapalika of
Kanpur has to bear the major responsibility for the pollution of the
river near Kanpur city.

It is no doubt true that the construction of certain works has been
D undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur in order to
improve the sewerage system and to prevent pollution of the water in
the river Ganga. But as we see from the affidavit filed on behalf of the
•
authorities concerned in this case the works are going on at a snail's
pace. We find from the affidavits filed on behalf of the Kanpur Nagar
Mahapa!ika that certain target dates have been fixed for the comple-
E tion of the works already undertaken. We expect the authorities con-
cerned to complete those works within the target dates mentioned in
the counter-affidavit and not to delay the completion of the works
beyond those dates. It is, however, noticed that the Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika has not yet submitted its proposals for sewage treatment
works to the State Board constituted under the Water Act. The
F Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should submit its proposals to the State
.r
Board within six months from today.

It is seen that there is a large number of dairies in Kanpur in
which there are about 80,000 cattle. The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
should take action under the provisions of the Adhiniyam or the rele-
G vant bye-laws made thereunder to prevent the pollution of the water in
the river Ganga on account of the waste accumulated at the dairies.
The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika may either direct the dairies to be
shifted to a place outside the city so that the waste accumulated at
the dairies does not ultimately reach the river Ganga or in the alterna-
tive it may arrange for the removal of such waste by employing motor
H vehicles to transport such waste from the existing dairies in which even
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (VENKATARAMIAH, I.] 553

the owners of the dairies cannot claim any compensation. The Kanpur A
Nagar Mahapalika should immediately take action to prevent the
collection of manure at private manure pits inside the city.

The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take immediate steps to
increase the size of the sewers in the labour colonies so that the sewage
may be carried smoothly through the sewerage system. Wherever B
sewerage line is not yet constructed steps should be taken to lay it.

Immediate action should also be taken by the Kanpur Nagar
Mahapalika to construct sufficient number of public latrines and
urinals for the use of the poor people in order to prevent defecation by
them on open land. The proposal to levy any charge for making use of
such latrines and urinals shall be dropped as that would be a reason for
c
the poor people not using the public latrines and urinals. The cost of
maintenance of cleanliness of those latrines and urinals has to be borne
by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika.

It is submitted before us that whenever the Board constituted D
under the Water Act initiates any proceedings to prosecute indus-
trialists or other persons who pollute the water in the river Ganga, the
persons accused of the offences immediately institute petitions under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, !973 in the High Court
and obtain stay orders thus frustrating the attempt of the Board to
enforce the provisions of the Water Act. They have not placed before E
us the facts of any particular case. We are, however, of the view that
since the problem of pollution of the water in the river Ganga has
I become very acute the High Courts should not ordinarily grant orders
-\ of stay of criminal proceedings in such cases and eveq if such an order
....... of stay is made in any extra-ordinary case the High Courts should
dispose of the case within a short period, say about two months, from F
the date of the institution of such case. We request the High Courts to
take up for hearing all the cases where such orders have been issued
under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 staying
prosecutions under the Water Act within two months. The counsel for
the Board constituted under the Water Act shall furnish a list of such
cases to the Registrar of the concerned High Court for appropriate G
action being taken thereon.
r One other aspect to which our attention has been drawn is the
practice of throwing corpses and semi-burnt corpses into the river
Ganga. This practice should be immediately brought to an end. The
co-operation of the people and police should be sought in enforcing H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.

A tlllS rcstrictiDn. Steps shall be taken by the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
and the Police authorities to ensure that dead bodies or half burnt
bodies are not thrown into the river Ganga.
J

Whenever applications for licences to establish new industries
are made in future, such applications shall be refused unless adequate
B provision has been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing
out of the factories. Immediate action should be taken against the
existing industries if they are found responsible for pollution of water.

Having regard to the grave consequences of the pollution of
water and air and the need for protecting and improving the natural
C environment which is considered to be one of the fundamental duties
under the Constitution (vide Clause (g) of Article 5 !A of the Constitu·
tionl we are of the view that it is the duty of the Central Government
to direct all the educational institutions throughout India to teach
at least for one hour in a week lessons relating to the protection and the
improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes,
D rivers and wild life in the first ten classes. The Central Government
shall get text books written for the said purpose and distribute them to
the educational institutions free of cost. Children should be taught
about the need for maintaining cleanliness commencing with the
cleanliness of the house both inside and outside, and of the streets in
which they live. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy
E mind. Training of teachers who teach this subject by the intwduction
of short term courses for such training shall also be considered. This
should be done throughout India.

In order to rouse amongst the people the consciousness of clean·
liness of environment the Government of India and the Governments
F of the States and of the Union Territories may consider the desirability
of organising 'Keep the city clean' week (Nagar Nirmalikarana
Saptaha), 'Keep the town clean' week (Pura Nirmalikarana Saptaha)
and 'Keep the village clean' week (Orama Nirmalikama Saptaha) in
every city, town and village throughout India at least onee a year.
During that week the entire city, town or village should be kept as far
G as possible dean, tidy and free from pollution of land, water and air.
The organisation of the week should be entrusted to the Nagar
Mahapalikas, Municipal Corporations, Town Municipalities, Village
Panchayats or such other local authorities having jurisdiction over the
area in question. If the·authorities decide to organise such a week it
may not be celebrated in the same week throughout India but may be
H staggered depending ur.on the convenience of the particular city, town
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.I 555

or village. During that week all the citizens including the members of A
the executive, members of Parliament and the State Legislatures,
members of the judiciary may be requested to co-operate with the
\ local authorities and to take part in the celebrations by rendering free
personal service. This would surely create a national awareness of the
problems faced by the people by the appalling all-round deterioration
B
of the environment which we are witnessing today. We request the
Ministry of Environment of the Government of India to give a serious
consideration to the above suggestion.

What we have stated above applies mutatis mutandis to all other
Mahapalikas and Municipalities which have jurisdiction over the areas
through which the river Ganga flows. Copies of this judgment shall be C
sent to all such Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities. The case
against the Nagar Mahapalikas and Municipalities in the State ofUttar
Pradesh shall stand adjourned by six months. Within that time all the
N agar Mahapalikas and Municipalities in the State of Uttar Pradesh
through whose areas the river Ganga flows shall file affidavits in this
Court. explaining the various steps they have taken for the prevention D
of pollution of the water in the river Ganga in the light of the above
judgll!ent. The case as against the several industries in the State of
Uttar Pradesh which are located on the banks of the river Ganga will
be taken up for hearing on the 9th of February, 1988.

S.L. Petition disposed of.