Everyone has a desire to dwell in the Clean and healthy environment.

It is the nature’s gift to

human being. Air, water and land are the indispensable elements for all living beings on
Earth. It is said that a healthier environment leads to a healthier brain 1

The legal framework for water pollution comprises of the Constitution of India, legally binding and
enforceable laws and rules framed under the laws, as well as judicial decisions. There are also a
number of non-binding administrative regulations and guidelines concerning water quality or water
pollution at national, stateand local levels. While some are concerned with public health, others
apply to environmental quality. Similarly, while some of them focus exclusively on drinking water,
others relate in general to the different uses of water2.

In view of the scope of this right, environmental, ecological, air and water
pollution gets violated in Article 21 of the constitution of India. Further, ‘the
entitlement of citizens to receive safe drinking water (potable water) is part of the
right to life under Article 21. As early as in 1984 (in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs.
Union of India case), the Supreme Court derived the concept of right to ‘healthy
environment’ as part of the ‘right to life’ under Article 213
The Constitution of India does not specifically mention water pollution. However, the Supreme Court
of India has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to
life, broadly to include the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water environment

Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar

In this case, the petitioner asked the court to take legal action against the company
which polluted Bokaro river by dumping waste, when state pollution board also did
not take appropriate measures for preventing this pollution. But the court dismissed
the petition on the ground of petitioner’s self interest. However, the court observed
that the article 21 includes right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life. Court also recognised that the whole environment is part of our
fundamental right to life. The municipalities and governmental agencies may be
compelled to take positive measures to improve the environment.

the right to hygienic environment (see Virendra Gaur & Others v State of Haryana & Others, (1995) 2
SCC 577).

Right to clean and healthy environment has been inserted under the ambit of article 21 by
the judicial decisions. Article 21 has always been interpreted in a broad manner. 4

The Court recently reiterated again that ‘the right to access to clean drinking
water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the state under Article 21 to
provide clean drinking water to its citizens’. The State is duty bound not only to
1
cullet, Philippe, “definition of an environment right in a human rights context:” p.2. international
environmental law research centre.
2
https://bbau.ac.in/dept/Law/TM/5.pdf
3
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/right-to-clean-water/
4
https://lawbhoomi.com/right-to-clean-and-healthy-environment-under-indian-constitution-an-analysis/
provide adequate drinking water but also to protect water sources from pollution
and encroachment. Any act of the State that allows pollution of water body ‘must
be treated as arbitrary and contrary to public interest and in violation of the right
to clean water under Article 21’.
Two of the Directive Principles of State Policy, included in Part IV of the Constitution, which provide
that the State shall endeavour (a) to improve public health (Article 47); and (b) to protect and
improve the environment (Article 48-A), are also relevant.Further, protection and improvement of
the natural environment, including lakes and rivers, has been identified as a fundamental duty of
every citizen in the Constitution (Article 51-A(g)).

In M.C. Mehta v Kamalnath[6] (1997) the Supreme Court categorically ruled that
the State is not only bound to regulate water supply, but should also help realize
the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards. The principle of Roman
Law ‘salus populi est suprema lex‘ (welfare of the people is paramount law) is the
abiding faith in Indian Constitution and the ‘State is assigned a positive role to
help people realize their rights and needs’. In State of Karnataka v State of Andhra
Pradesh (2000) the Court held that the right to water is a right to life, and thus a
fundamental right. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India[7] (2000) it was
held that ‘water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of
the right to life and human rights’. The A.P. High Court, while citing several of the
abovementioned rulings of the Court, reiterated the responsibility of the State in
providing clean drinking water to the citizens in P. R. Subhash Chandran v
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others[8] (2001). Thus, in the Indian
Constitution, providing every citizen with adequate clean drinking water and
protecting water from getting polluted is a fundamental Directive Principle in the
governance of the State as well as a penumbral right under Article 21[9].
{https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/right-to-clean-water/#_ftnref5}
The Court was dealing with, and prohibited, the setting up of a water polluting
industry within 10 km radius of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar, the two water
bodies that supply drinking water to Hyderabad city. The Court applied the
‘precautionary principle’ to protect these two water bodies.{case ka naam search
krna h}
The two main objectives of the Water Act are:

(i) toprevent and control water pollution; and

(ii) to maintain or restore wholesomeness of water

Water pollution Incudes following :

•contamination of water or alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or
discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into
water (whether directly or indirectly) •as may, or is likely to, •create a nuisance or render such water
harmful or injurious to •public health or safety, or •domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or
other legitimate uses, or •the life and health of animals or plants or aquatic organisms.

Though in the case invavery company has taken the all kinds of permission permission from the state
but The Water Act prohibits any person from knowingly causing or permitting the entry of (i) any
poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, directly or indirectly, into any stream or well or sewer or on
land, or (ii) any other matter into any stream which may tend, either directly or in combination with
similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to
lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.

In 2002, the apex court validated the Sardar Sarovar dam project on Narmada in
2000 Interpreting the right to life article as right to water. “Water is the basic need
for the survival of human beings and is part of the right to life and human right as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can be served only by
providing source of water where there is none.” Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (C) No. 319 of 1994
Apart from expanding the content of the right to life as including the right to water,
the court has, in the context of water pollution, mandated the cleaning up of water
sources including rivers (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[11]), and even tanks and
wells (Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi[12]).
The court has also applied the ‘precautionary principle’ to prevent the potential
pollution of drinking water sources consequent upon the setting up industries in
their vicinity[13]. Various judicial pronouncements have recognized that water is a
community source which is to be held by the state in public trust in recognition of
its duty to respect the principle of inter-generational equity.

There are basically following main enactments passed by the legislation. They are
being listed as follows:

1. Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974[14];

2. Provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[15]; and
3. Indian Easements Act, 1882

Indian Easements Act, 1882

This Act recognises the right of a riparian owner (someone who owns the land
adjoining a river or water stream) to unpolluted waters. A riparian owner has a
right to use the water of the stream which flows past his land equally with other
riparian owners, and to have the water come to him undiminished in flow, quantity
and quality and to go beyond his land without obstruction. Section 7 of the
Easement Act provides that every riparian owner has the right to the continued
flow of the waters of a natural stream in its natural condition without destruction or
unreasonable pollution. The Court in the MC Mehta v Union of India[16],
recognized and revived the doctrine of riparian rights. The court in this case
maintained that ‘the petitioner is a riparian owner and is a person interested in
protecting the lives of the people who make use of the water flowing in the river
Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be disputed. The nuisance
caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is wide
spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to
expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the
community at large.’ The case was admitted as a PIL and was filed against the
Municipal Corporation.

Respondent

A large number of enactments regarding water and water based resources have
been passed concerning water supply for drinking purposes, irrigation, and
rehabilitation of evacuees affected by the operations of schemes for water
resources management. However, none of these laws enumerate an explicit ‘right
to water’. Instead, some of the laws have expressly abolished structured (rights to
use a resource) and customary rights.
M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)
This is the major landmark case in India. The petition was filed by M.C Mehta under
article 21 and 32 of the constitution and sought the closure and relocation of factory
located in a thickly populated area of Delhi. The factory was engaged in
manufacturing of hazardous substance during its operation. The issues arose when
the oleum gas leaked from this factory caused the death of an advocate and
adversely affected the health of several others.

The court showed the deep concern for the safety of people along with the
development of economy. The supreme court was of the opinion that the permanent
closure of public utility industry would lead to slowdown the growth of
developmental activities as well as generate the unemployment, poverty and social
issues also. The court suggested to relocate the factory with certain conditions, with a
view to eliminate the risk which ensures continuous compliance with the safety
standards and procedures laid by the committee. The court directed the government
to make national policy which ensures certain quality standard and further, to make
laws on management and handling of hazardous substances including procedure to
set up and run industry with minimal risk to human, animals etc. The industry cannot
absolve itself from the liability on the ground that they were not negligent in their
operations or had taken reasonable precautions. In this case, the principle of no-fault
liability was applied.

T.N. Godavarman thirumulpad Vs. Union of India

This case is concerned with the conservation of forests. Justice Y.K Sabharwal held that the
legislative measures have shifted the responsibility from states to centre. Any threat to the
ecology would adversely affect the lives of living being and thus, violate the right to life
under article 21 of the constitution. The constitution enjoins upon this court a duty to
protect the environment.

An important ruling of the Indian Supreme Court was the case of A.P. Pollution
Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62. In this case, the AP
government had granted an exemption to a polluting industry and allowed it to be
set up near two main reservoirs in Andhra Pradesh – the Himayat Sagar Lake and
the Osman Sagar lake, in violation of the Environment Protection Act 1986. The
Supreme Court struck down such exemption and held that the “Environment
Protection Act and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 did
not enable to the State to grant exemption to a particular industry within the area
prohibited for location of polluting industries.”

Not sure about following cases below use them accourdingly needed:_
The intention of the judiciary to reinforce the right to pollution-free waters is
implicit in the M.C. Mehta case[17] (1988) where the tanning industries located
on the banks of the river Ganga were alleged to be polluting the river. The Court
issued directions to them to set up effluent plants within six months from the date
of the order. It was specified that failure to do so would entail closure of business.
The Court also issued directions to the Central Government, UP State Pollution
Control Board and the District Magistrate. Although this judgment has made no
reference to the right to life, the supporting judgment has noted that the pollution
of river Ganga is affecting the life, health and ecology of the Indo-Gangetic Plain.

The SPCB is responsible for determining whether the matter is ‘poisonous, noxious or polluting’ or
‘any other’ matter. However, these prohibitions may not apply in some situations.

The command-and-control approach towards water pollution is evident from the permit system
envisaged under the Water Act. Previous consent of the SPCB is required to establish any industry,
operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system etc., which is likely to discharge
sewage/trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (known as sewage discharge), to use
any new or altered outlet for,or to make any new, sewage discharge. Contravention of these two
provisions is punishable with imprisonment for a term between 18 months and six years as well as
fine. The SPCB has been granted certain powers to prevent and control water pollution. · It can
undertake certain emergency measures to remove and dispose the polluting matter, or to remedy or
mitigate pollution caused by the polluting matter or issue orders immediately restraining or
prohibiting the polluting activity. · Itcan apply to the courts to restrain apprehended water pollution
in streams and wells. The court may direct a potential polluter to desist from causing pollution or
direct an actual polluter to remove the polluting matter. In case of non-compliance with the latter
direction, the SPCB may be authorized by the court to undertake the removal and disposal and
recover the expenses from the polluter. · It can direct closure, prohibit or regulation of any industry,
operation or process, or to stop or regulate supply of water, electricity or any other service. The
person-in-charge of an industry, operation or process or any treatment or disposal system or any
extension or addition thereto, or the local authority in charge of a sewerage system or sewage works,
is required to report any actual or likely discharge of a poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into a
stream or well or sewer or on land due to an accident or other unforeseen act or event, and the
resulting or likely water pollution, to the SPCB or other prescribed authority. In order to augment the
financial resources of the CPCB and SPCBs, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act,
1977 levies a cess on the water consumed by persons carrying on certain industries and local
authorities. A 25 per cent rebate is given to any person or local authority that installs a sewage
treatment plant or trade effluent treatment plant. In a majority of cases, the water cess amount is
either not assessed and levied by the SPCB, or if levied, remains unpaid by the consumers and/or its
collection is not pursued by the SPCB. 3.3.2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 While the Water Act
applies specifically to water pollution, the subsequently enacted Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(the ‘Environment Act’), which provides for environmental protection and improvement, applies
todifferent types of environmental pollution, including water pollution. It has been clarified that in
case of conflict between the two laws, the provisions of the Environment Act will prevail. Under the
Environment Act, the Central Government (through the Ministry of Environment and Forests or
MoEF) has been vested with thepower to lay down standardsfor environmental quality in its various
aspects and for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources having
regard to their quality or composition. This has led to the notification of rules, which provide water
quality standards for various areas and purposes and themaximum allowable limits of concentration
of various water pollutants for different areas. The Act prohibits a person carrying on any industry,
operation or process from discharging or emitting water pollutants (or permitting their discharge or
emission) in excess of the prescribed standards.Where a discharge of a water pollutant in excess of
the prescribed standards occurs (or is apprehended)due to an accident or other unforeseen act or
event, the person responsible for the discharge and the person in charge of the place where the
discharge

occurs (or is apprehended) are required to prevent or mitigate the resulting water pollution and to
inform the prescribed authority of such an apprehension or actual occurrence. The prescribed
authority is also required to undertake the necessary remedial measures as early as practicable. The
Central Government has also issued a number of notifications, which are relevant for the prevention
and control of water pollution. These include: ÿ Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 ÿ
Different eco-Sensitive Zone notifications ÿ Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 3.3.3.
Limitations of environmental laws There are several reasons for the poor implementation or non-
implementation of the provisions concerning water pollution in the Water Act and/or the
Environment Act. These include: · Inadequate infrastructure (monitoring stations) and frequency of
monitoring · Low rate of compliance o Poor implementation and monitoring by SPCB ß Failure of the
SPCB to act against defaulters/polluters due to resource constraints - financial, human and technical
ß Lack of will ß Corruption ß Multiple responsibilities of SPCBs (under the Water Act as well as the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981) o Very low quantum of penalty/fine, so cost of non-
compliance < cost of compliance · Inadequacy of standards, which does not rule out occurrence of
water pollution regardless of compliance In addition, the application of the Water Act is confined to
point sources of water pollution. The absence of legal provisions governing non-point sources of
water pollution undermines the implementation of the provisions of the Water Act.

3.4. Nuisance under criminal laws

Section 277 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 penalizes voluntary corruption or fouling of the water of
any public spring, reservoir so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily
used.However, this provision does not apply to river pollution and private wells. Further, the
punishment, which is imprisonment of a maximum term of three months and/or a maximum fine of
Rs500 does not have the required deterrent effect. Under section 133 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, a speedy and summary remedy is available, among other situations, where ‘any
unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or
channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public’. However, the injunctive relief under section
133must not interfere with an order of the SPCB under the Water Act (if any).

4. Judicial Decisions

TheSupreme Court of India, High Courts as well as the National Green Tribunal have adjudicated a
number of cases where the issue of water pollution was raised. Some of these cases have provided
the courts with an opportunity to address situations resulting from poor implementation or non-
implementation of the relevant provisions of existing laws (see the MC Mehta cases below). In some
other cases, courts have relied on principles of environmental law, such as the polluter pays principle
and the precautionary principle, to impose liability on the polluter or the potential polluter who has
then been directed to undertake the necessary remedial or preventative measures, as the case may
be (see the Indian Council case &Vellore case below).There are several other cases where over the
years, important aspects of the water pollution issue have been raised before the courts.

In MC Mehta v. Union of India(Kanpur Tanneries case), AIR 1988 SC 1037, a public interest litigation
soughtan order from the Supreme Court to restrain the tanneries near Kanpur city from discharging
trade effluents into the river Ganga until they set up effluent treatment plants. The Court observed
that the provisions of the Water Act were comprehensive but the SPCBs had not taken effective steps
to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. It also noted the failure of the Central
Government to do much under the Environment Act to stop the grave public nuisance caused by the
tanneries. Insofar as the tanneries are concerned, the Court observed that the fact that their
effluents are first discharged into municipal sewers did not absolve the tanneries from being
proceeded against under the provisions of the law in force, since ultimately the effluents reach the
river Ganga.Among other directions, the Court ordered stoppage of work in the tanneries, which
were discharging effluents into the river and which did not set up primary treatment plants. It
considered the financial capacity of the tanneries to set up primary treatment plants to be irrelevant.
According to the Court, the tanneries were not being taken by surprise as they were being asked to
take necessary steps to prevent discharge of untreated wastewater into the river for several years.

In another important case, MC Mehta v. Union of India(Municipalities case), AIR 1988 SC 1115, a
public interest litigation was filed seeking the enforcement of the statutory provisions which impose
duties on municipal authorities and the SPCB constituted under the Water Act.. The Supreme Court
observed that the municipal authorities have the statutory duty to prevent public nuisance caused by
pollution of the river Ganga and therefore, the municipal corporation of Kanpur has to bear the
major responsibility for river pollution near the city. The Court also took note of the fact that many of
the provisions of the Water Act and the municipal laws for prevention and control of water pollution
have just remained on paper without any adequate action being taken pursuant thereto.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1446, among other
claims, it wasalleged that water in wells and streams in village Bichhri in Udaipur district in the State
of Rajasthan had become unfit for consumption as a result of disposal of untreated toxic sludge from
an industrial complex located within the limits of the village. The Supreme Court held that the
respondents were absolutely liable to pay compensation for the harm caused by them to the
villagers in the affected area and surrounding areas as well as to the environment.According to the
Court, the power to levy costs required for carrying out remedial measures is implicit in the
Environment Act.

In another case, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2715, the
petitioner organization was concerned about water pollution resulting from the discharge of
untreated effluents by tanneries and other industries into riverPalar in the State of Tamil Nadu, which
was a source of drinking water supply. The Supreme Court directed the constitution of an authority
under the Environment Act to deal with the situation created by the tanneries and other polluting
industries in the State. The authority was also directed to frame and execute scheme(s) for reversing
ecological/environmental damage caused by pollution in the State. It also imposed pollution fine on
all the tanneries, and ordered the closure of tanneries that fail to pay the fine. However, it allowed
suspension of closure orders where tanneries agree to set up common effluent treatment plants or
individual pollution control devices and obtain consent to operate from the SPCB. Failure to obtain
consent from the SPCB would however result in closure of tanneries

Water pollution is a very serious problem in India. The right to a water pollution-free environment
has been read into the fundamental right to life guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In
addition to a specific law to prevent and control water pollution as well as the environment
protection legislation, which follow a command-and-control approach, the statutory framework
governing water pollution comprises provisions of municipal laws and public nuisance-related
provisions in civil and criminal laws. While the first three laws have suffered from serious
implementation failures, the provisions relating to public nuisance have also not been invoked.
However, the issue of water pollution has been raised in a number of public interest litigations to
varying effect