1

INDEX
i.M.C.Mehta vs Union of India & Ors (2004).…………………..……………………………2
ii. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors..………….……………………..3
iii. Amritlal Nathubhai Shah vs Union Government Of India .…….…………………………4
iv. Kalpavriksh Ors vs Union Of India Ors ..………………………………………………….5
v. A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V. Nayudu..………...…………………………….7
vi. S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors ……..…………..………………………………….8
vii. Rekharani Maitra & Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate & Ors……..………………..10
viii. Malvererv v. Spinke………………………………………………….………………….11
ix. G. Sundarrajan vs U.O.I & Ors ………………………………………….……………….12
x. Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors ………………………….………………13
xi. M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors (1996)……………………………………..……...14
xii. Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Ors ……………………………………………15
xiii. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others…………………………………...16
xiv. Bses Limited vs Union Of India ……………………………………………………...…17
xv. A.M. Kuttysankaran Nair vs P.V. Kumaran Nair And Ors………………………………18
xvi. T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors ……………………………19
xvii. Court On Its Own Motion vs Union Of India & Ors …………………………………..20
xviii. Box v Jubb……………………………………………………………………………..21
xix. Sree Kottam Tulasi Reddy V. M/s SNS Starch Limited…………………………...……21
 2

Supreme Court of India

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
Author: Y Sabharwal
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema.
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985

PETITIONER:
M.C. Mehta
V.
RESPONDENT:
Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH:
Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema.

The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading
the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it
is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable
development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight
of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc.
including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A
balance has to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, series of orders
have been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman's case regulating the felling of trees in
all the forests in the country.
 3

Supreme Court of India

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 1947
Author: S S Nijjar
Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 2143 WITH 2283, 3088, 3461, 3479, 3693 IN 2143, 827, 1122,
1337, 1473 AND 1620 AND 1693 IN 1473 AND 3618
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 OF 1995

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Union Of India & ORS. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

Para 3 (2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the President promulgated on the
25th October, 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the
prior approval of the Central government necessary for de- reservation of reserved forests and
for use of forest-land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided for the
constitution of an advisory committee to advise the Central Government with regard to grant
of such approval.
 4

Supreme Court of India

Amritlal Nathubhai Shah And ... vs Union Government Of India And ... on 24 August,
1976
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2591, 1977 SCR (1) 372
Author: P Shingal
Bench: Shingal, P.N.
PETITIONER:
AMRITLAL NATHUBHAI SHAH AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1976

BENCH:
SHINGAL, P.N.
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION: 1976 AIR 2591 1977 SCR(1) 372

1976 SCC(4) 108

(ii) The State Government is the owner of the minerals within its territory, and the minerals
vest in it, and no person has any right to exploit them otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules. [374- D]

3. It is therefore quite clear that, in the absence of any law or contract etc. to the contrary,
bauxite, as a mineral, and the mines thereof, vest in the State of Gujarat and no person has
any right to exploit it otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules. Section 10 of the Act and Chapters II, III and IV of the Rules, deal with the grant of
prospecting licences and mining leases in the land in which the minerals vest in the
Government of a State. That was why the appellants made their applications to the State
Government.
 5

National Green Tribunal

Kalpavriksh Ors vs Union Of India Ors on 17 July, 2014

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

APPLICATION NO. 116 (THC) OF 2013

In the matter of:

1. Kalpavriksh

2. Goa Foundation .....Appellants

Versus

Union of India .......Respondent

Judgement

the Central Government framed Environment Clearance Regulations, 2006 vide Notification
No. S.O. 1533(E) dated 14th September, 2006. This is also known as EIA Notification, 2006
(for short 'the Notification of 2006'). The Notification of 2006, in Paragraph 7 stipulates four
stages in the process of obtaining Environmental Clearance. Stage (1) is screening. At this
stage the EAC or the State Expert Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC') takes the decision
whether Environmental Impact Assessment (for short 'EIA') Report has to be prepared for the
proposed projects. Stage (2) is Scoping. At this stage, the EAC for category 'A' projects and
the SEAC for category 'B' projects determines detailed and comprehensive Terms of
Reference (for short 'TOR') addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the
preparation of an EIA Report in respect of the proposed project or activity for which the prior
environmental clearance is sought. Then the detailed environment impact study is carried out
at proposed site by a team of experts from all the relevant fields, addressing all the Terms of
Reference and thereafter a report, predicting all positive and negative impacts and their
magnitude is prepared. This is followed by preparation of Environment Management Plan
(for short 'EMP') which details out various measures to be taken to minimise the impact to an
acceptable level. Such report along with EMP is submitted to the MoEF. Stage (3) relates to
Public Consultation and has two components - 1) a public hearing, which is conducted by the
concerned State Pollution Control Board at the project site or in its close proximity,
explaining all the possible environment impacts and measures proposed in EMP. This is done
for ascertaining the concerns of the locally affected persons. The procedure prescribed for
 6

public hearing is described in Appendix IV to the Notification and 2) obtaining written

responses from other concerned persons who have a plausible stake in the environmental
aspects of the project or activity. Lastly, Stage (4) relates to Appraisal of the Project. Under
para 7(i) of the Notification of 2006, 'appraisal' has been defined as the detailed scrutiny by
the EAC or the SEAC of the application and other documents like the Final EIA Report and
the outcome of the public consultations including public hearing proceedings, submitted by
the Project Proponent to the regulatory authority concerned for grant of environmental
clearance. In terms of the Notification of 2006 read in conjunction with its Appendices, the
Project Proponent is expected to file documents and additional information, including
possible alternative sites for the project, studies on the cumulative impact of the project due
to proximity of other projects and the impact of the project on the local communities,
disturbance to sacred sites etc. The EAC or the SEAC concerned has to make categorical
recommendations to the regulatory authority concerned either for grant of prior
environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for
prior Environmental Clearance, together with reasons for the same. The Regulatory Authority
will be the MoEF or State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short 'SEIAA')
depending upon the category in which such project falls. Appraisal of the project is one of the
most important steps to be taken in the entire process of grant or refusal of the Environmental
Clearance to a proposed project or activity. Appendix V to the Notification 2006 provides the
procedure for Appraisal.
 7

A.P. Pollution Control Board Ii vs Prof.M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)And Ors on 1 December,

2000
Author: M J Rao
Bench: M.J.Rao, M.B.Shah
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 368-371 of 1999
Appeal (civil) 372 of 1999
Appeal (civil) 373 of 1999

PETITIONER:
A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
PROF.M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.)AND ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/12/2000

BENCH: M.J.Rao, M.B.Shah

Judgement

The High Court referred to the order of the Appellate authority under Section 28 of the Water
Act dated 5.1.98 and the report of Dr.Sidhu, to the effect that even if hazardous waste was a
by-product, the same could be controlled if the safeguards mentioned in the Hazardous
Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 were followed and in particular those in
Rules 5,6 and 11, were taken. The Rules made under Manufacture, Storage and Import of
Hazardous Chemical (MSIHC) Rules 1989 also permit industrial actively provided the
safeguards mentioned therein are taken. The Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning,
Preparedness and Response) Rules 1991 supplement the MSIHC Rules, 1989 on accident
preparedness and envisage a 4-tier crisis management system in the country. Therefore,
merely because an industry produced hazardous substances, the consent could not be refused.
It was stated that as the matter was highly technical, interference was not called for, as
"rightly" contended by the learned counsel for the respondent company.
 8

Supreme Court of India

S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 1996
Author: K Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad.
PETITIONER:
S. JAGANNATH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD.

This case dealt with the ecological and social implications of commercial shrimp farming in
India. The traditional rice/shrimp rotating acqua culture system previously used by Indian
fishermen had began to give way to more intensive methods of shrimp culture which could
produce thousands of kilograms per hectare. A large number of private companies and multi-
national corporations had started investing in shrimp farms. Within a few years more than
eighty thousand hectares of land had been converted to shrimp farming. A high investment
return and expanding market was expected by replacing the environmentally benign
traditional mode of culture by semi-intensive and intensive methods. The petitioner sought
the enforcement of a coastal zone regulation notification issued by the Government of India,
stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile
coastal areas, prohibition to use wet lands for Prawn farming and the constitution of a
National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life and coastal areas. The
Supreme Court analyzed several national and international studies on the ecological and
social implications of commercial shrimp farming. It took into account the issues of loss of
agricultural land and mangroves, obstruction of natural drains, salinisation, destruction of
natural seed resources, use of drugs and chemicals, extraction of groundwater and loss of
biodiversity, among others. The court emphasized that the new trend of more intensified
shrimp farming - without much control of feeds, seeds and other inputs and water
management practices - had brought to the fore a serious threat to the environment and
ecology. Agricultural lands were being converted into commercial aquaculture farms, which
had caused unemployment to the landless labourers and also loss of cultivable land.
Sustainable development should be the guiding principle for the shrimp aquaculture. The
 9

industry had to develop under the unified motto of environment and development. There had
to be an environmental impact assessment also taking into account the social impact on
different population strata in the area before permission was granted to install commercial
shrimp farms. It also had to take into consideration the inter-generational equity and the
compensation for those who were affected and prejudiced. The court therefore directed, inter
alia, that the Central Government had to constitute an authority with all the powers necessary
to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The authority had to implement "the
Precautionary Principle" and "the Polluter Pays" principles. No shrimp culture pond as
defined in the coastal zone regulation notification could be constructed or set up within the
coastal regulation zone. This direction did not apply to traditional types of technologies. All
shrimp culture industries operating in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the
notification had to be demolished. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet
lands, forest lands, could not be converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds. Shrimp
culture industry other than traditional and improved traditional could be set up outside the
coastal regulation zone as defined by the notification with the prior approval of the authority
mentioned above. The authority had to assess the loss to the ecology and had to assess the
compensation to individuals/families who had suffered because of the pollution.
 10

Calcutta High Court

Rekharani Maitra & Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate & Ors

Citation: C R No. 9063 (W) 83

Judges: Basudeva Panigrahi

4. Respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed their affidavit-in-opposition through the land
acquisition Kanungo attached to office of the Collector and District Magistrate, South 24
Parganas. It is, inter alia, stated that the provisions of Act II of 1948 continues to be in force,
as from time to time the said provisions has been extended. The land was acquired for public
Utility' or 'Public Purpose" which rests upon the maxim "Solus Popuilest Supreme Lex"
which would otherwise mean the "welfare of the people' is paramount consideration. Public
necessity is greater than private and therefore to subserve such public interest, the in- dividual
inconvenience if any, shall have to be sacrified. The purpose of land acquisition has been
stated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was for the project popularly known as 'East Calcutta
Area Developed Project' which has been sponsored by the World Bank and in- tended to be
completed by a time bound programme and under that scheme an area of ap- proximately 500
acres adjacent, Eastern Metropolitan Bye-pass and Rash Behari Avenue Connector has been
proposed to be developed into a new township with all infrastructural and community
services mainly for the benefit of the economically weaker-section of the so- ciety and to
create a better living condition in the area by way of developing the land, pro- viding roads,
underground, sewerage, electricity, drainage etc.
 11

Malvererv v. Spinke (2009)

Author :Aulakh, Milkha & Khurana, Mohinder & Singh, Dhanwinder.

Water pollution related to agricultural, industrial and urban activities, and its effects on
food chain: Case studies from Punjab.

Journal of New Seeds. 10. 112-137. 10.1080/15228860902929620.

Under-treated effluents can also cause other potential environmental pollution like air, land
surface, soil, etc. Casual disposal of industrial wastewater used in irrigating crops can cause
serious damage to the quality of the crops produced and can also reach the food chain.
 12

To achieve the public good,

the
property, liberty and life of an
endangered species can be
placed in jeopardy in the case
of
existing, immediate and
overwhelming necessity
To achieve the public good,
the
property, liberty and life of an
endangered species can be
placed in jeopardy in the case
of
existing, immediate and
overwhelming necessi Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
G. Sundarrajan vs U.O.I & Ors on 8 May, 1947
 13

Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Vikramajit Sen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36179 OF 2013

G. Sundarrajan …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents

WITH I.A. NO.3 IN C.A. NO.4440 OF 2013

JUDGMENT
Further, the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions
placed on his movements, but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our
Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said
right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies
domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security.
In the last resort, a person's house, where he lives with his family, is his "castle": it is his
rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty. The pregnant words of that famous
Judge, Frankfurter J., in Wolfv. Colorado, (1949) 338 US 25, pointing out the importance of
the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police, could have no less
application to an Indian home as to an American one. If physical restraints on a person's
movements affect his personal liberty, physical encroachments on his private life would
affect it in a larger degree. Indeed, nothing is more deleterious to a man's physical happiness
and health than a calculated interference with his privacy. We would, therefore, define the
right of personal liberty in Article 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restriction or
encroachments on his person, whether those restriction or encroachments are directly
imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the acts of
surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under
Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. Article 21 of the Constitution has, therefore, been
interpreted by all the seven learned Judges in Kharak Singh's case (majority and the minority
opinions) to include that "right to privacy" is a part of the right to "protection of life and
personal liberty" guaranteed under the said Article.

Supreme Court of India

 14

Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997
Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath
PETITIONER:
PT. PARMANAND KATARA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1989
BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION: 1989 AIR 2039 1989 SCR (3) 997 1989 SCC (4) 286 JT 1989 (3) 496 1989
SCALE (2)380
Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. The provision
as explained by this Court in scores of decisions has emphasised and reiterated with gradually
increasing emphasis that position. A doctor at the Government hospital positioned to meet
this State obligation is, therefore, duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life.

Supreme Court of India

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996
 15

Author: K Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin
PETITIONER:
M.C. MEHTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/12/1996
BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN
The objective behind this litigation is to stop the pollution while encouraging development of
industry. The old concept that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer
acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. The development of industry is essential
for the economy of the country, but at the same time the environment and the eco-systems
have to be protected. The pollution created as a consequence of development must
commensurate with the carrying capacity of our eco-systems. Various orders passed by this
Court from time to time (quoted above) clearly indicate that the relocation of the industries
from TTZ is to be resorted to only if the natural gas which has been brought at the doorstep
of TTZ is not acceptable/available by/to the industries as a substitute for coke/coal. The
GAIL has already invited the industries in TTZ to apply for gas connections. before us Mr.
kapil Sibal and mr. Sanjay parikh, learned counsel for the industries have clearly stated that
all the industries would accept gas as an industrial-fuel. The industries operating in TTZ
which are given gas connections to run the industries need not relocate.

Supreme Court of India

Ashok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 March, 1997
Author: K Ramaswamy
 16

Bench: K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G.B. Pattanaik

PETITIONER:
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA , VIDYA SAGAR GUPTA & ORS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1997

BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

The fundamental requisites to all employees are honesty, integrity and character, apart from
hard work, dedication and willingness to apply assiduously to the responsibilities attached to
the office or post and also inclination to achieve improved excellence. What Dalits and Tribe
employees need is an opportunity and fair chance of promotion to higher posts and offices
earmarked for them in the roster where they are not adequately represented. In clash of
competing claims between general category employees on the one hand and Dalits and Tribes
on the other, what the authorities need to take into consideration is the aforesaid factors and
their service record with an objective and dispassionate assessment. When the authorities
have a power coupled with constitutional duty, the doctrine of full faith and credit under
Article 261 gets due acceptance when done truly and sincerely with an honest, objective and
dispassionate assessment by the appropriate authority. Their claims need to be considered in
that perspective; they should be given promotion, if found eligible, to the posts or classes of
posts in the higher cadre, grade, class or category etc. The selecting officer/Officers need to
eschew narrow. sectarian, caste, religion or regional consideration or prejudices which were
deleterious to fraternity, unity and integrity and integration of the nation as unified Bharat.
What needs to be achieved by the Dalits and Tribal officers so promoted is that they could, on
par with others assiduously devote themselves with character, integrity and honesty in the
discharge of the duties of the posts with added willingness and dedication to improve
excellence.

Supreme Court of India

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
 17

Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

Author: P Bhagwati
PETITIONER:
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1983
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
PATHAK, R.S.
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 802 1984 SCR (2) 67
1984 SCC (3) 161 1983 SCALE (2)1151
It is a matter of regret that though Section 13 provides for constitution of a Vigilance
Committee in each District and each subdivision of a District, the Government of Haryana,
for some reason or the other, did not constitute any Vigilance Committee until its attention
was drawn to this requirement of the law by this Court. It may be that according to the
Government of Haryana there were not at any time any bonded labourers within its
territories, but even so Vigilance Committees are required by Section 13 to be constituted
because the function of the Vigilance Committee is to identify bonded labourers, if there are
any, and to free and rehabilitate them and it would not be right for the State Government not
to constitute Vigilance Committees on the assumption that there are no bonded labourers at
all. But we are glad to find that the Government of Haryana has now constituted a Vigilance
Committee in each District. It does not appear from the record whether a Vigilance
Committee has been constituted also in each sub-division of a District but we have no doubt
that the Government of Haryana will without any delay and at any rate within six weeks from
today constitute a Vigilance Committee in each sub-division and thus comply with the
requirement of Section 13 of the Act. We may point out that in constituting Vigilance
Committee in each-District and sub-division, the Haryana Government would do well to
include representatives of non-political social action groups operating at the grass root level
for it is only through such social action groups and voluntary agencies that the problem of
identification of bonded labour can be effectively solved.
Bombay High Court
Bses Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 17 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 Bom 128, 2001 (1) BomCR 394
 18

Author: B Singh
Bench: B Singh, S Radhakrishnan

JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, C.J.

17. Environmental issues are relevant and deserve serious consideration. But the needs of the
environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of
a developing country. If one finds, as In this case, that all possible environmental safeguards
have been taken, the check and control by way of judicial review should then come to an end.
Once an elaborate and extensive exercise by all concerned including the environmentalists,
the State and the Central authorities and expert-bodies is undertaken and effected and its end
result judicially considered and reviewed, the matter thereafter should in all fairness stand
concluded. Endless arguments, endless reviews and endless litigation in a matter such as this,
can carry one to no end and may as well turn counterproductive. While public interest
litigation is a welcome development, there are nevertheless limits beyond which it may as
well cease to be in public interest any further."

Kerala High Court

A.M. Kuttysankaran Nair vs P.V. Kumaran Nair And Ors. on 2 August, 1963
Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 Ker 161, 1965 CriLJ 699
 19

Author: P G Menon
Bench: P G Menon

JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J.

3.Exception 1 is in the following terms: "it is not defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or
published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact." Exception 9 reads;
"it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the
imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or
OF any other person, or for the public good.

12. It cannot be said that the publication was not made in public interest or for public good. A
subject may become one of public interest if the public or a section of the public become
interested in it. The documents produced in this case amply show that the public of different
shades of opinion had interested themselves in the school affairs and were keen on a
settlement of the disputes.

Supreme Court of India

T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
Author: Kirpal
 20

Bench: Quadri, S.S.M. (J), Pal, Ruma (J), Variava, S.N. (J), Balakrishnan, K.G. (J)
Reddi, P.V. (J), Bhan, Ashok (J) Pasayat, Arijit (J)
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 317 of 1993

PETITIONER:
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors.
V.
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2002

BENCH:
B.N.KIRPAL CJI & G.B.PATTANAIK & V.N.KHARE & S.RAJENDRA BABU &
S.S.M.QUADRI

106."The right established by Article 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute.
Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19, it is not subject to reasonable
restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of
setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended to be effective
and is not to be whittled down by so-called regulative measures conceived in the interest not
of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole. If every
order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the
power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interests,
though not in its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by Article 30(1)
will be but a "teasing illusion", a promise of unreality. Regulations which may lawfully be
imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of
recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a
minority institution effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual
test - the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of
the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for
the minority community or other persons who resort to it."

Supreme Court of India

Court On Its Own Motion vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 December, 2012
Author: ………………………………...J.
 21

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 284 OF 2012

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ….Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents

10. Now, we may examine the dimensions of the rights protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The socio-economic justice for people is the very spirit of the preamble
of our Constitution. ‘Interest of general public’ is a comprehensive expression comprising
several issues which affect public welfare, public convenience, public order, health, morality,
safety etc., all intended to achieve the socio-economic justice for people. In the case of
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42, this Court
while noticing Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (for short
‘UDHR’) asserted that human sensitivity and moral responsibility of every State is that “all
human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The Court also
observed “the jurisprudence of personhood or philosophy of the right to life envisaged under
Article 21, enlarges its sweep to encompass human personality in its full blossom with
invigorated health which is a wealth to the workman to earn his livelihood, to sustain the
dignity of person and to live a life with dignity and equality.”

Box v Jubb 
 22

Citation: LR 4 EX Div 76

The defendant had a reservoir on their land. There was another reservoir situated at a higher
level than the defendant’s. The owner of this other reservoir emptied it through a drain
connected to the defendant’s reservoir causing the defendant’s reservoir to overflow and
damage the claimant’s land. The claimant brought an action under Rylands v Fletcher
contending that there was a non natural user of the land and that there had been an escape of
water that caused damage.

Held: The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act of a third party
over which the defendant had no control.

Sree Kottam Tulasi Reddy V. M/s SNS Starch Limited

Case No.: IA No. 327/2022/DELHI

Bench: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goyal

Justice Sudhir Agarwal

Dr. A. Senthil Vel

With regard to claim of compensation of the applicant which is based on alleged damage to
the health of the students, there is not even a shred of pa per filed showing the damage
suffered in terms of health or expenditure incurred, if any. Only basis is loss of profit on
account of closing of the college. There is no material to establish that closure of the college
was related to the activities of the industry. Even if there was violation of environmental
norms, that by itself does not establish that the extent of violation was such that it was not
possible for the applicant institution to function. On the other hand, there is material to show
that the college may have its own reasons for clo- sure not necessarily relating to the alleged
pollution. The applicant itself in its letter has stated that there were economic or other reasons
for the closure. The media reports relied upon by the industry do suggest that large number of
colleges were closed as the students were not available who could pay the amount of fee
required, in absence of prospects for employment. In this view of the matter, we do not find
any substance in the individual claim of the applicant.

Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
 23

3 Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. —
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community
tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:—
(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for
habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;
(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in
erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (59 of 1980),
the Central Government shall provide for diversion of forest land for the following facilities
managed by the Government which involve felling of trees not exceeding seventy-five trees
per hectare, namely
(a) schools;
(b) dispensary or hospital;
(c) anganwadis;
(d) fair price shops;
(e) electric and telecommunication lines;
(f) tanks and other minor water bodies;
(g) drinking water supply and water pipelines;
(h) water or rain water harvesting structures;
(i) minor irrigation canals;
(j) non-conventional source of energy;
(k) skill upgradation or vocational training centres;
(l) roads; and
(m) community centres:
Provided that such diversion of forest land shall be allowed only if,—
(i) the forest land to be diverted for the purposes mentioned in this sub-section is less than
one hectare in each case; and
(ii) the clearance of such developmental projects shall be subject to the condition that the
same is recommended by the Gram Sabha.
Section 8 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
 24

8. Persons handling hazardous substances to comply with procedural safeguards. —No

person shall handle or cause to be handled any hazardous substance except in accordance
with such procedure and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed.