Case Brief: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

Name of the Case	M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
Citation	MANU/SC/1007/1997
Date of the Judgement	13.12.1996
Petitioner	M.C. Mehta
Defendants	Kamal Nath, and Span Motel Private Limited
Bench/ Judges	P.NS.H. KapKuldip Singh and Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Forest (Conservation) Act
Important Articles/ Sections	Forest Act- section 2

FACTS

A private company named “Span Motels Pvt. Ltd.” had built a motel on leased land by the Indian government on the banks of the river Beas. They invaded a land about 17.12 bighas, including substantial forest land, adjacent to theirs, which was later leased to them. To prevent themselves from future floods, change the direction of the river and create a new channel to divert the flow. This whole incident with published in an article in the Indian Express.

The newspaper reported under the caption - Kamalnath dares The Mighty Beas to keep his dreams afloat. The newspaper established an alleged link between the Kamalnath family and the company. They noted that the company is trying to divert the root by at least 1 km downstream. This is likely to cost over 1 crore rupees. There is a high possibility that the river might return.

When made, the respondent Kamalnath denied all the claims against him and said that he had no right or interest in the property. The report has been published only to harm and malign the reputation of the respondent.

In September 1993, the activities by the company on the flow of the river caused floods, and property worth Rs 105 crore was destroyed. 

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Constitution of India

Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty

Article 32: Writ jurisdiction to Supreme Court

Article 51-A (g): It outlines the fundamental duty of the citizen to preserve, protect and imporve the natural environment and ]to have compassion for living creatures.

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Section 2: It poses restriction on dereservation of forest for non- forest purpose.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the public trust doctrine is applicable in India, and whether the Himachal Pradesh government has breached this trust?
2. Whether polluter pays principle be applied in this case?
3. Whether the company is liable to pay compensation in their activities for the environmental damage.?
4. Whether the lease valid and legal under the law for commercial purposes?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE

1. The lease-held area in possession of the Motel is a part of protected forest land owned by the state government. The government is a trustee of the natural resources, and leasing such property is a breach of public trust.
2. The activities that seek to encroach upon the riverbed and divert its course of direction are causing unwarranted ecological damage and degradation, and it has the potential to increase the risk of natural disaster.
3. The grant of property to the government is an abuse of power to their prejudice.
4. This encroachment seeks to violate the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANT’S SIDE

1. Mr. Kamal Nath, then Minister of Environment and Forest, denied having any stake in the property or company. He contended that the news article was exaggerated and defamatory to his reputation.
2. The company claimed that their activities of diverting the course of the river were done the good faith, to protect their asset and the surrounding neighbours from flooding.
3. The lawyers contended that some words were implicitly permitted under the law.
4. They also claimed that the lease of the additional land was not void.

JUDGMENT 

The bench disposed of the writ petition except for the limited purpose.

The bench applied the concept of doctrine of public trust. The notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristics is finding its way into the law of the land. It primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like sea, river water, air, forest, etc, are of universal importance to the people that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Resources are a gift of nature, and they should be made readily available to everyone irrespective of their caste, creed, or status in life. Therefore, the protection of ecologically valuable resources is essential. The state is a Trustee of all natural resources. 

The court observed that the government breached the public trust by leasing the ecologically sensitive zone along the banks of the river Beas for commercial purposes.

The court applied the ‘polluter pays’ principle, according to which once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the Loss caused to any other person by his activity, irrespective of the fact whether he took all precautions or not. Their liability shall be absolute. The bench is of the belief that remediation of the damage is a part of sustainable development.

Precautionary principle in the context of municipal law means that 

1. The state and the regulatory bodies must anticipate, prevent, and attack the cause of the environmental degradation.
2. Where there are threats of serious damage, the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a tool to postpone the preventive measures against the degradation.
3. The onus or burden of proof is on the actor or company, or industry on whom allegations have been made. 

The precautionary principle and polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land.

The order issued by the court is as follows:

1. Public trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land.
2. The court quashed the lease deed of the subsequent bighas.
3. The Himachal Pradesh government shall restore the area to its original natural conditions.
4. The company is ordered to pay compensation for the restoration of the environment and ecology of the area. The compensation cost shall be identified by NEERI.
5. The motel is ordered to show cause why a ‘pollution fine’ should not be paid.
6. The motel shall construct a wall around its building of not more than 4 meters from the cluster of rooms.
7. The government is obligated to inspect the motel regularly to maintain the prescribed standards.

CONCLUSION

This judgment stands landmark in environmental jurisprudence. The court has unequivocally applied the public trust doctrinf and redefined the role of state declaring it as a trustee of all the natural assets. The decision in quashing the lease shows the court’s commitment in safeguarding the environment and preventing the abuse of power.