The judiciary has been instrumental in guaranteeing that the Indian Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights includes the right to water. A great deal of work has also been done by social activists, and much of it may be attributed to the socio-legal tool known as public interest litigation, which has made it simpler to file a complaint in court to challenge infringement of the right to water. This places positive obligations on the state to reduce environmental harm, using a variety of laws and policy implementation techniques.
subhash kumar v state of bihar Case Facts
- The petitioner filed a writ petition through public interest litigation, claiming that the respondents, Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) and West Bokaro Collieries, were polluting the bokaro river by releasing excess waste into the river from their washeries in the form of sludge or slurry, making the water unfit for irrigation or drinking.
- The petitioner asked for instructions to be sent to the respondents so that they may stop polluting the river right away and file a lawsuit against TISCO under the 1974 water prevention and control of pollution act. Additionally, the petitioner asked the court for temporary remedy, arguing that he should be allowed to gather sludge or slurry that washes out of the defendants’ washeries.
- According to the Bihar State Pollution Board, the TISCO Company has been given permission to release its effluents from its outlets in compliance with sections 25 and 26 of the water prevention and control of pollution act, 1974, and the Bokaro Collieries have been instructed to take meaningful action to improve the quality of the effluent entering the bokaro river.
subhash kumar v state of bihar Issues
- Was the petitioner authorized to use a public interest litigation to submit a plea?
- Has the discharge of slurry from the respondent’s washeries contaminated the bokaro river?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner has argued that the excess waste that is released into the river as sludge or slurry from washeries leaves a carboniferous product on the soil that degrades the land’s fertility. He further claimed that the water being transported to far-off locations is unfit for irrigation or drinking, and that the constant sludge leak from Tata Iron & Steel Co. seriously jeopardizes public health.
- Additionally, it is claimed that despite repeated demands, the State of Bihar has done nothing and is even giving royalties on leasing payments. In his request, he asked that the State of Bihar’s Bihar Pollution Control Board be given relief from the directive issue and that quick action be taken to stop Tata Iron and Steel & Co.’s sludge discharge into the Bokaro River.
Respondent:
- The Bihar Pollution Control Board, according to the attorneys for the respondents, has taken all necessary precautions to prevent the Bokaro river from becoming contaminated. In accordance with Sections 25 and 26 of the water prevention and control of pollution act, 1974, the Board has given the Tata Iron & Steel Co. permission to discharge industrial effluents from its outlets.
- Additionally, it was claimed that no wastewater was dumped into the bokaro river, that the river was not contaminated, and that the soil’s fertility was unaffected. Since the river is a vital fuel supply, the company made sure that no muck leaked out.
- The State Pollution Control Board Act of 1974’s regulations and procedures were adhered to by the corporation, according to the attorney.
subhash kumar v state of bihar Judgment
- The court determined that the petitioner’s personal interests were at stake and that the public interest litigation was not filed in the benefit of the greater public good. The court noted that the petitioner had his own self-interest and that, in light of the facts and the papers on file, the petition could not be maintained in a court of law.
- The judges believed that the petitioner had no regard for the public’s interests and had no care for the damaging impact that pollution would have on the environment or the general public. When the petitioner puts his own interests ahead of the public interest, the primary goal of a PIL as a remedy is defeated.
- The Petitioner, an influential businessman with a coal trading license, attempted to coerce the Respondents into providing him with a larger quantity of slurry; when they refused, he began to harass them.
- In this decision, the court also considered the extent of article 21 of the indian constitution and emphasized the need to expand it by supporting people’s rights to live in environments free from pollution.
- As a result, the Supreme Court maintained that the Petitioner had filed multiple cases under article 226 of the indian constitution with the Patna High Court in order to obtain permission to gather slurry from raiyati land. After taking into account all the information, the Court rejected the current plea and ordered the Petitioner to give the Respondents 5,000/-rupees.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
