Skip to main content

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR (1988) SC 1037, 1115:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR (1988) SC 1037, 1115:

  • The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, was a social activist and lawyer who filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, seeking to stop the pollution of the river Ganga by the industries and municipal bodies in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

  • The main source of pollution was the leather tanneries, which discharged untreated effluents containing toxic chemicals and organic matter into the river, depleting the dissolved oxygen and harming the aquatic life and human health.

  • The respondents included the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Central Pollution Control Board, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, and several tannery owners and associations.

  • The Supreme Court issued several directions and orders to the respondents, such as:The tanneries were required to set up primary treatment plants within six months, failing which they would be liable to pay compensation and face closure.

  • The Central and State Boards were directed to monitor the water quality and effluent standards, and to take legal action against the violators.

  • The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika was directed to improve the sewerage system and sanitation facilities, and to prevent the discharge of domestic sewage into the river.

  • The Union of India was directed to provide financial and technical assistance to the State and the municipal authorities for implementing the measures to control pollution.

  • The Supreme Court also recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and invoked the principle of strict liability for the polluters, irrespective of their negligence or intention.

  • The Supreme Court also emphasized the duty of the citizens to protect and improve the natural environment under Article 51A of the Constitution, and appealed to the public to cooperate with the authorities in the task of cleaning the river Ganga.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Companies act ,2013

Companies Act, 2013 Meaning and Nature of a Company with Emphasis on its Advantages 1. Meaning of a Company : A company is a legal entity formed by a group of individuals to engage in and operate a business commercial or industrial enterprise. It is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in India. According to Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, "Company means a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law." Lord Justice Lindley : "A company is an association of many persons who contribute money or money's worth to a common stock and employ it for a common purpose. The common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is the capital of the company." A company is an artificial person created by law. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its members. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue, and be sued in its own name. 2. Nature of a Company : The nature of a company can be understood through its key ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more