This blog is written by Edwin Shibu, a Third-year law student of Amity University, Dubai, UAE

I. Facts:

Petitioner: M.C Mehta

Respondents: Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 30/12/1996

Citation: 1997 AIR SCW 552

The Taj Mahal, located in Agra, India, is a white marble mausoleum noted for its architectural splendor. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site that welcomes millions of tourists each year, representing both the grandeur of Mughal architecture and the enduring power of human compassion.

However, it was severely threatened by pollution from surrounding vehicles, environmentally harmful industries, etc. The monument's white marble was turning yellow and deteriorating as a result of the pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide, which resulted in acid rain.

M.C. Mehta, a prominent public interest lawyer, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of India in 1984, highlighting the adverse effects of pollution on the Taj Mahal and sought judicial intervention to protect it from further damage.

II. Issues:

1. Whether industrial affairs in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) were causing significant pollution that catastrophically affected the Taj Mahal, leading to its deterioration?

2. Whether the emissions generated by coke or coal utilizing industries were the principal polluters in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ)?

3. Whether the prevailing environmental measures were effectively enforced to prevent deterioration of the Taj Mahal from industrial emissions?

III. Rules:

In this landmark case, an array of legal and environmental principles was applied by the Supreme Court to address the pressing issue of pollution affecting one of the seven wonders of the world – The Taj Mahal.

1. Sustainable Development: The idea of sustainable development was an integral part of the court’s decision. The court emphasized the importance of regular monitoring and compliance to ensure that industrial activities did not exceed pollution limits. This helped maintain a balance between industrial development and environmental sustainability.

2. Polluter Pays Principle: In the present case, the Polluter Pays Principle was used to ensure that industries were held accountable for the damage they have caused. The Court demanded that businesses take "absolute liability" for environmental damage. This meant that they were not only responsible for compensating those affected by pollution but also for covering the costs of repairing any damage done to the environment. This approach was intended to encourage industries to act more responsibly and to support long-term environmental sustainability.

3. Precautionary Principle: The court deeply relied on the precautionary principle, which focuses on preventing harm before it happens. This principle calls for taking anticipatory action to elude ecological impact even if the full extent of the harm isn’t entirely visible yet.

4. Constitutional Provisions: The Court placed reliance on various Constitutional Provisions to further amplify the judgement passed, namely:

a) Article 21: The right to a clean environment is a fundamental part of right to life, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."

b) Article 47: This Article mentions that “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties.”

c) Article 48(A): This Article highlights that “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”

d) Article 51(A)(g): Under Part IV A of the Indian Constitution, Article 51-A(g) states that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

5. Statutory Provisions: The already existing environmental laws such as The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 played a key role in shaping the later part of the judgement.

IV. Analysis:

a) Arguments from the Plaintiff’s side:

The plaintiff, M.C Mehta, a renowned environmental activist, states that numerous sources were contributing to pollution in Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) which in turn is harming the illustrious Taj Mahal. These include Iron foundries, Ferro-alloy industries, hazardous chemical industries; lime processing and rubber processing, brick kilns and vehicle emission. He also analyzed that Mathura Refinery can be considered as a distant source of pollution. As by-products, these factories release sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. And when this sulfur dioxide (SO2) mixes with moisture in the air, it forms sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which leads to acid rains; affecting the Taj Mahal’s pristine white marble.

Furthermore, the plaintiff spotlights the sickening condition of the Taj Mahal. Due to this pollution, apparent damage has been rendered against the Taj Mahal. The marble has started to become noticeably darker and yellower. The condition is significantly worse within the monument, with the fungal decay particularly noticeable in the inner chamber that houses Mumtaz Mahal's and Shah Jahan's tombs.

M.C Mehta placed reliance on various reports such as:

1. The Varadharajan Committee Report (1975): This report evaluated the Mathura Refinery's environmental effects and emphasized serious pollution issues in the Agra area. The study reported elevated levels of particulate matter and Sulphur dioxide. As a result of which, the Committee proposed certain recommendations such as prohibiting the establishment of novel, environmentally harmful businesses in the region to the north and west of the Taj Mahal. Furthermore, move already-existing small businesses—particularly foundries—to locations distant from the monument. It also recommended that a specific authority be established to constantly monitor and control pollution.

2. Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Report (1981): The report titled "Inventory and Assessment of Pollution Emission in and Around Agra-Mathura Region" by the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, published in 1981, provided a detailed analysis of pollution sources in the Agra region. It categorized industrial activities contributing to Sulphur dioxide emissions, including foundries, metal casting, rubber processing, and brick kilns. The report estimated that industrial sources in Agra were responsible for emitting about 3.64 tons of Sulphur dioxide daily. Therefore, aiding the plaintiff in emphasizing the horrific air quality in Agra.

3. NEERI Overview Report (1990): In 1990, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) provided an "Overview Report" on air pollution around the Taj Mahal. The report revealed that pollution from various small and medium-scale industries scattered around the monument resulted in high levels of air contamination. It was reported that levels of sulfur dioxide at the Taj Mahal often surpassed permissible limits, reaching as high as ten times the allowable levels. The Agra-Mathura region's rapid industrial development has resulted in alarming rates of acidic emissions, which NEERI regarded as a serious concern. These pollutants posed a significant threat to both the monument's marble and the surrounding ecosystem, impacting plant life and building materials.

Most importantly, it emphasized the critical need to address air pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) by suggesting a shift to cleaner fuel sources. It notably recommended for the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) to replace coal and coke, both of which were recognized as major sources of pollution. In line with the Supreme Court of India’s directives, NEERI proposed a detailed study to assess the technical and economic feasibility of adopting CNG in the industrial sectors of Agra, Mathura, and Firozabad. The Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) was tasked with developing the terms of reference for this study.

b) Arguments from the Defendant’s Side:

The senior counsel for the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) informs the court that the corporation is actively exploring options to move industries out of the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). They assured the court that measures are being taken to relocate these industries to other locations to help cut down on pollution.

On the other hand, Kapil Sibal, representing the industries, told the court that many of them are in the process of transitioning from using coal and coke to natural gas, as suggested by the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). He emphasized that this shift would greatly lower pollution around the Taj Mahal. Sibal also noted that while they are committed to reducing pollution, the transition is partly dependent on GAIL supplying the necessary gas connections. This collaboration with GAIL underscores their dedication to improving environmental conditions.

c) Judgement:

The Supreme Court of India recognized the Taj Mahal's intrinsic worth as a cultural and historical landmark. The court accepted that pollutants from coke and coal-consuming companies were causing severe damage to the Taj Mahal and its surroundings in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). It stressed the importance of eliminating atmospheric pollution to protect both human life and this historical site. In accordance with the precautionary principle, which requires proactive efforts to evade environmental harm, the court ruled that industries must establish that their operations have no negative influence on the environment.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court ordered that the 292 named industries transition to natural gas or halt operations in the TTZ. Furthermore, industries that were unable to obtain gas connections were required to relocate by applying to the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) for alternative plots outside the TTZ. GAIL was responsible for processing gas connection applications by March 31, 1997, and supplying gas by June 30, 1997. Those who failed to apply for gas or relocate by the given deadlines were required to discontinue activities using coke or coal by April 30, 1997, with local authorities immediately severing coke or coal supply.

Finally, the State Government was directed to expedite plot allocations and offer incentives for relocating enterprises. During the transition period, workers in the impacted industries were guaranteed job security and pay. The court also set deadlines for finishing the relocation process and ordered the government to create plans for repurposing land from displaced industries.

V. Conclusion:

By mandating the transition to cleaner fuels like natural gas and imposing strict controls on industrial emissions, the Supreme Court sought not only to preserve this iconic monument but also to improve air quality in the region. This landmark decision has continued to guide oversight of activities within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). For instance, the Court’s recent intervention regarding the construction of a new civil facility by the Government of India with respect to an airport near the Agra area reflects its ongoing vigilance. With approximately 40 significant monuments in the TTZ, including three UNESCO World Heritage Sites—Agra Fort, the Taj Mahal, and Fatehpur Sikri—the Court and the relevant authorities remains deeply committed to their protection. The enduring relevance of this judgment underscores the critical importance of safeguarding these international treasures for future generations.

References:

1. Pti, “SC Asks Environmentalist to Respond to Centre’s Report on Construction at Agra Airport near Taj Mahal” The Economic Times (November 22, 2019) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sc-asks-environmentalist-to-respond-to-centres-report-on-construction-at-agra-airport-near-taj-mahal/articleshow/72188471.cms?from=mdr

2. “M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1964392/

3. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

4. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

5. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

6. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21

7. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 47

8. The Constitution of India. 1950, Art. 48(A)

9. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 51(A)(g)