Prestige Institute of Management and Research

(Department Of Law)

MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) : case analysis

Submitted To: Submitted By:

1
 List of Abbreviation

u/a Under Article

2
Facts of Case:-

The case was filed in response to an article published in the Times of India about severe air
pollution in Delhi.

The case concerned, in particular, the activities of businesses in Delhi that caused air pollution.
The petitioner alleged that the industry was violating the constitutional right to a clean and
healthy environment and that the government had not taken adequate measures to address the
problem.

The court ordered the closure of factories in Delhi that were operating without a valid license or
violating pollution control norms. This led to the closure of thousands of businesses in Delhi.

The court also ordered the government to take measures to reduce pollution from vehicles,
including the use of unleaded petrol and the installation of catalytic converters in vehicles

The court ordered the government to take measures to reduce air pollution in the Taj Mahal area
of Agra, which is also affected by air pollution.

The court established the "polluter pays" principle, which states that polluters should bear the
costs of pollution control measures. This principle was applied in several subsequent
environmental cases in India.

The court created a commission to monitor the implementation of its orders and make
recommendations regarding further action

Issues Raised:

 The case of MC Mehta Vs. Union of India (1986) was that severe air pollution in
Delhi caused by industrial operations in the city violated the constitutional right to a
clean and healthy environment. The case was brought to address the problem of air
pollution and to hold industry and government accountable for not taking adequate
measures to address the problem.
 The case raised the issue of the right to a clean environment and the responsibility of
industry and government to protect and preserve the environment for present and

3
 future generations. The case also highlighted the need for a comprehensive and
effective framework for environmental protection and rational use..

Relevant Rules Applicable

The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) concerned environmental pollution and the
rights of citizens to a clean and healthy environment. Below are some of the relevant rules that
applied in this case:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981. These laws provide for the prevention and control of water and air
pollution and regulate the discharge of pollutants into the environment.

Environment (Protection) Act 1986: This Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that
provides for the protection and improvement of the environment and the prevention of danger to
people, other living things, plants and property.

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This Act establishes the National Green Tribunal as a
specialized forum for efficient and expeditious adjudication of cases relating to the protection
and preservation of the environment.

Constitution of India: The Constitution of India guarantees the right to a clean and healthy
environment.

Arguments from Petitioner-

In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the petitioner alleged that Delhi's industry had
caused severe air pollution, a violation of the constitutional right to a clean and healthy
environment. Below are some of the arguments advanced by the applicant:

Industries in Delhi were operating without a valid license and violating pollution control norms,
leading to severe air pollution in the city.

4
The government has not taken adequate measures to address the problem of air pollution in
Delhi, despite several complaints and petitions from citizens.

The right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, and industry and government have a duty to protect and preserve the environment
for present and future generations.

Severe air pollution in Delhi has caused several health hazards, including respiratory problems,
lung cancer and other diseases that have affected the health and well-being of citizens.

Industrial enterprises are responsible for pollution and should be responsible for the costs of
pollution control measures and compensation for pollution victims.

The petitioner argued that urgent action is needed to tackle the problem of air pollution in Delhi
and that industry and the government should be held accountable for their failure to protect the
environment and the health of citizens. The court accepted the petitioner's arguments and ordered
the closure of the factories violating pollution control norms and directed the government to take
steps to reduce air pollution in Delhi.

Arguments from respondent-:\

In MC Mehta v Union of India (1986), the defendants were businesses operating in Delhi and
government agencies responsible for regulating industry and enforcing pollution control norms.
Here are some of the arguments given by the respondents:

The industries were operating according to the rules and regulations set by the government and
were not responsible for the severe air pollution in Delhi.

The government has taken several measures to tackle air pollution in Delhi, including setting up
pollution control boards and enforcing pollution control norms.

The closure of industries in Delhi will have serious economic consequences and job losses, so
alternative solutions to air pollution need to be explored.

The costs of pollution control activities should be shared by all stakeholders, including citizens
and government, not just industry.

5
Delhi's air pollution problem was not limited to industries alone, with other factors such as
vehicular emissions and dust pollution also contributing to the problem.

The respondents argued that industries are not solely responsible for the severe air pollution in
Delhi and that alternative solutions should be explored to address the problem without serious
economic consequences. However, the court found the defendants' arguments insufficient

Judgment:-

The ratio of the decision in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) is that the right to a
clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the [Link] of
India and it is the duty of industry and the government to protect and preserve the environment
for the present and future generations. The decision established the "polluter pays" principle and
ruled that industries responsible for pollution must bear the costs of measures to prevent, control
and eliminate pollution. The court ordered the closure of factories that violated [Link] control
norms and ordered the government to take measures to reduce air pollution in Delhi.

The judgment also established the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a means of
ensuring environmental protection and environmental protection. He recognized the role of
citizens in enforcing environmental laws and holding government and industry accountable for
their failure to protect the environment and the health of citizens. The court noted that the issue
of environmental protection is of national importance and requires urgent attention and action.

The decision in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) was instrumental in shaping environmental
law and policy in India. It established the principle of environmental justice and was applied in
several subsequent environmental cases in India. The decision recognizes the importance of
environmental protection for present and future generations and emphasizes the need for a
comprehensive and effective framework for environmental protection and management. 

6
The principle laid in the case:-

The principle laid down in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) is that the right to a clean and
healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
decision established the "polluter pays" principle and ruled that industries responsible for
pollution must bear the costs of measures to prevent, control and eliminate pollution. The
principle recognizes the importance of protecting the environment for present and future
generations and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and effective framework for
environmental protection and management.

The judgment also established the principle of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a means of
ensuring environmental protection and environmental protection. He recognized the role of
citizens in enforcing environmental laws and holding government and industry accountable for
their failure to protect the environment and the health of citizens. The principle outlined in the
case emphasizes the importance of citizen participation in environmental management and the
need for a collaborative approach to environmental protection and preservation.

The principle enshrined in MC Mehta v Union of India (1986) has been instrumental in shaping
environmental law and policy in India. This has been applied in several subsequent
environmental cases in India and has led to a solid foundation for environmental protection and
management. The principle has also influenced international environmental law and has been
recognized as a key principle in several international environmental treaties and conventions.

Conclusion:-

In conclusion, MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) was a landmark case which established the
principle that the right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The case also established the polluter pays principle and recognized
the importance of public interest litigation (PIL) as a means to ensure environmental protection
and conservation.

The decision played an important role in shaping environmental law and policy in India and led
to a comprehensive and effective framework for environmental protection and management. The

7
case has also influenced international environmental law and has been recognized as a key
principle in several international environmental treaties and conventions.

Overall, the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) is a testament to the power of the
judiciary to protect and preserve the environment for present and future generations. It
emphasizes the importance of citizen participation and cooperation in environmental
management and emphasizes the need for a collaborative approach to environmental protection
and preservation.