Essay: Environmental protection laws in India

INDIAN PRESPECITVE
Historical Background
Indian independence was with an aim to release the country and its people from the rigid clutches of British regime and to govern the country by our own people with our own set of laws. During the rule not only the people suffered but the environment also deteriorated to a great extent.
After independence, there were steps taken to draft the Constitution of India with new provisions to modify and repeal the environment unfriendly laws and policies.
The Constitution empowered the Parliament of India and the State Legislatures to enact laws for it’s people and for development. There were no specific provisions for the protection and promotion of the environment. The Constitution contained provisions such as Articles 39 (b), 47, 48 and 49 which provided an indirect and tangential reference to environment but did not provide with a comprehensive national agenda to protect and conserve the environment in its totality. This prompted the eminent jurist, Prof. Upendra Baxi to comment that the Constitution of India was “environmentally blind”. However, in could be seen atleast in dotted lines in in Article 21 right to life and Article 47 of the Constitution which states that the State should improve the standard of living and public health and to fulfil this Constitutional goal of right to live, it became necessary for the States to provide a pollution free environment.
Although there weren’t any specific provisions in the constitution of India, there were acts which were enacted to curb water and air pollution.
The Factories Act, 1948 enacted to secure health, safety and welfare of the workers employed in factories, contained provisions dealing with disposal of trade waste and effluents. The Damodhar Valley Corporation (Prevention of Pollution of Water) Regulation Act, 1948 authorized the Corporation to make regulations with previous sanction of the Central Government for prevention of water pollution.
The River Boards Act, 1956 established River Boards for regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys. One of the functions of the Board is to advise the State governments on prevention of pollution of waters on the inter-state rivers.
The United Nations Conference on Human Environment, 1972:
Stockholm in June, 1972 held The United Nations Conference on Human Environment. This Stockholm Conference first conference at an international level for the common outlook on the issue of environment protection, Promotion and conservation. India was a participant and signatory to this conference on human environment. In order to comply with the resolution and principles laid down at the Stockholm Conference, the Government of India had taken the following steps in the direction to amend and enact new legislations for the protection and promotion of environment.
– 42nd Constitution Amendment Act.
– Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act 1974.
– Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981.
– Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Constitution 42nd Amendment Act introduced two additional Articles to the Indian Constitution i.e Article 48A in form of Directive Principles of State Policy(DPSP) and Article 51A (g) in the form of of Fundamental Duty.
By this amendment, constitution of India incorporated the protection and improvement of the environment.
Constitution Provision
Fundamental Right: Article 21
Article 21 reads as:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
This right is the heart of the Indian Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision of our living constitution and lays down the foundation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 has declared that everyone has the right to life and everyone has a right to live in a standard living environment adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family.
‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The right to life is unquestionably one the most fundamental of all rights. The right to life is the most essential rights available to mankind as pre-existence of life itself is required to add quality to life by all the other rights available under the Indian Constitution. As human rights can only attach to living beings, making right to life itself a primary right, but if interpreted in its original sense becomes a restrictive right and other rights would have any value or utility without it.
Therefore, the judiciary has broaden its ambit and given a wider meaning to right to life which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to clean and healthy environment, right to pollution free water and air, etc. Article 21 being fundamental to our very existence without which human being cannot live and it includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
The right to live in a clean and healthy environment is not new to the Indian Society and Judiciary. Environment protection has been a 5000 year old history and tradition to protect it flows from ancient and medieval period. From Victorian to modernism there have been traces of efforts made for protection of environment. This right has been recognized by the legal systems and by the judiciary in particular over a reasonable passage of time. The only difference in the enjoyment of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment today is that it has attained the status of a fundamental right whose violation is not permitted by the constitution of India. It was only from the late eighties and thereafter that the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts of India designated this right as a pertaining right.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India case in 1984, the Supreme Court derived the concept of right to ‘healthy environment’ as part of the ‘right to life’ under Article 21.
The Supreme Court of India in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P  declared that the right to environment  in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that “the right to life” as enshrined in Article 21 that it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for the full enjoyment of life.
Moreover, in case of Virandar Gaur v/s State of Haryana, the Supreme Court recited, reaffirmed and applied principle 1 of the Stockholm declaration held that Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment and ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any act giving rise to Environmental Pollution including pollution of air, water and ecology would be termed as violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
With the help of the amendments and precedents, it is derived that right to clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right available to all under Article 21 Right to life.  Any pollution caused to the environment would be direct violation of Article 21.
To adhere with the principles of the Stockholm Declarations adopted by the International conference on Human Environment, the Government of India, by the constitution 42nd Amendment act 1976 made an express provision in the constitution for the protection and promotion of the environment by the introduction of Article 48-A as a part of DPSP and 51-A(g) as part of fundamental duties.
The amendment provided for the following:
Article 48-A: By the amendment in constitution added Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
Article 51-A (g): By the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others , this court ruled that precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. This court declared Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) to be part of the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment.
This was further articulated in the case of M.C. Mehta v/s Kamal Nath (1997 (1) SCC 388) where the Court was of the opinion that Articles 48A and 51A(g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution on the right to life. The Court pronounced that “any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil necessary for life, that could be hazardous to life, would result in abridgement of the right to life and a Court could award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance. This was a landmark judgment in the course of evolution of environmental policy and law.
Thus, the constitution has two folds to protect the environment:
On one hand, it gives direction to the state for preservation and improvement of environment.
On the other hand, it puts a constitutional duty on the citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.
Era of PIL
The Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others has examined in-depth the Definition, Origin, Evolution and Abuse of Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation(PIL) means a legal action initiated by any party or suo-moto in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Most environmental actions in India are brought under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The writ procedure are speedy, relatively inexpensive and offers direct access to the highest courts of the land, hence are is preferred over the conventional suit. The powers of the Supreme Court and High Court to issue directions under Article 32 and 226 respectively has attained greater significance in environmental litigation. This power could be utilized for forging new remedies and fashioning new strategies. It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. The court’s directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life and for disciplining the developmental processes, keeping in view the demands of ecological security and integrity.
In one of the earlier cases, Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v/s State of UP & Ors, that posed an environment development dilemma, Supreme Court gave directions that were necessary to avert an ecological imbalance, such as constitution of expert committees to study and to suggest solutions, establishment of a monitoring committee to oversee afforestation programmes and stoppage of mining operations that had an adverse impact on the ecology.
The rights to livelihood and clean environment are of grave concern to the courts whenever they issue a direction in an environmental case.
In L.K.Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court observed that a citizens duty to protect to protect the environment under Article. 51-A (g) of the Constitution bestows upon the citizens the right to clean environment. The judiciary may go to the extent of asking the government to constitute national and state regulatory boards or environmental courts. In most cases, courts have issued directions to remind statutory authorities of their responsibility to protect the environment. Thus, directions were given to local bodies, especially municipal authorities, to remove garbage and waste and clean towns and cities.
In another PIL, M.C Mehta v/s Union of India  the issue before the Supreme Court was Ganga water pollution caused by trade effluents discharged by tanneries into the river in Kanpur . The Court relaxed the rule of locus standi, stating that the petitioner was entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as an interested citizen, in protecting the lives of people who make use of river water. The Court placed an equal responsibility upon the Kanpur Municipal Corporation for discharge of insufficiently treated sewage into the river. The result of the judgement was constitution of the Ganga River Basin Authority by the Central Government for abatement of pollution of the Ganga. The Authority became the medium for channelling funds to Urban Local Bodies for abatement of pollution caused by release of municipal sewage into the Ganga. While continuing to hear the matter, the Supreme Court in M.C Mehta v/s Union of India observed that the effluent discharged from a tannery was ten times more noxious in comparison to municipal sewage. The Court reiterated the superior right to a clean environment and negated the argument that the financial capacity of the tanneries was limited, while directing them to establish primary treatment plants. The Court compared an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers and therefore cannot exist, to a tannery which cannot set up a primary effluent treatment plant due to financial incapacity and therefore should not be permitted to operate.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Water Act of 1974 represented India’s first attempts to form a comprehensive law for environmental issue. Water is state subject under the Constitution of India, it was enacted under Article 252 (Clause 1) that empowers the Parliament to make laws on any entry found in the State List if two or more State Legislatures consent to a Central Law. This Act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and maintenance and restoration of wholesomeness of water. It establishes Pollution Control Board at the national and state level known as central pollution control board and State Pollution Control Boards to administer and implement the Act. Prior to establishment of any industry which is likely to discharge
Sewage, debris or trade effluents, the industry has take prior consent from the State Pollution Control Board and comply with the conditions laid down by the same. Violation to the provisions of the Act will attract penal provisions. Any citizen as well as on it own motion the State Pollution Control Board can launch a prosecution against the polluting industry.
Pollution of River Yamuna: Sources and Effects
SOURCES
River Yamuna is the largest tributary of the Ganga River in North India. Its total length is around 1370 kilometers. Yamuna originates from the Yamunotri Glacier of Uttar Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. River Tons and Giri are the important tributaries of Yamuna and principle source of water in mountainous ranges. Yamuna flows through the states of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, before merging with the Ganges at Allahabad. World famous cities like Delhi, Mathura and Agra lie on its banks.
Yamuna is one of the most polluted rivers of India. Approximately 75 percent of urban waste ends up in the country’s rivers. According to the Centre for Science and Environment, approximately 75 to 80 percent of the river’s pollution is the result of raw sewage, industrial runoff and the garbage thrown into the river and it totals over 3 billion liters of waste per day. About 20 billion rupees, or almost US $500 million, has been spent on various cleanup efforts.
The pollution in the Yamuna River is continuously escalating and the river water is unfit for any use. There are serious water quality problems in the cities, towns and villages using Yamuna rivers as a source of their water and the Yamuna is under serious threat from unprecedented escalation in urbanization and industrialization. The major sources of pollution in Yamuna river are:-
Industrial Effluents
Yamuna River is likewise called mailee (filthy) stream and waterway of distress to Delhi, Mathura and Agra. The River water is to a great degree dark, it seems like a modern channel in Delhi, as larger part of the industries are located on its bank and used to dump the untreated effluents into the waterway. The water in the Yamuna stays stagnant for roughly nine months in a year. There are boundless quantities of modern units, depleting huge measure of untreated water in Yamuna existing in Delhi, Faridabad, Mathura and Agra. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had evaluated that there were around 359 mechanical units, which directly or indirectly release their effluents in Yamuna. A report of CPCB indicates that there were about 42 industrial units in Delhi directly polluting the Yamuna.
Domestic Waste Water
There is large amount of the wastewater discharge polluting the Yamuna river. The domestic household waste in Delhi and NCR are not segregated properly and the untreated domestic water is dumbed in the Yamuna waste.
Pollution from Agriculture
The agriculture is also one of the main sources of contamination in the Yamuna River, which directly or indirectly affects river water quality through, ground and surface water runoff of agricultural land through monsoon and non-monsoon precipitation and seepage of irrigation water, which is composed of artificial fertilizer residues, insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and farmyard waste. Agriculture is very common in the catchment areas as well as all along the bank of the Yamuna River.
Solid Wastes
Solid wastes are the unwanted and discarded products in the solid states and their proper and legitimate management is essential. Dumping of solid waste and garbage is a real issue being faced by Yamuna River. The primary explanation behind this is the thick population living nearby the banks and the dumping of untreated water and solid waste into the river.  Untreated solid waste being discharged are from the colonies located in Sonepat, Panipat, Delhi, Noida, Mathura, Agra and Etawah and considered to be one of the major source of pollution and contamination of water.
Other Sources
There are many other reasons of pollution of Yamuna river water, such as on holy and religious occasions every year, thousands of peoples take a dip in the Yamuna and leave behind worship materials, polythene bags, clay idols, human excreta, account books and floral offerings in the river water, which increases the suspended materials in the water. Peoples have the habit of dumping unburnt bodies of human beings and animals into the river. According to superstition, bodies of those who die from certain diseases (asthma, tuberculosis, leprosy, snake bite, poisoning etc.) and those of newborn babies, unmarried persons and holy men are consigned to the river. But poor people also dump bodies into the rivers to save on costly wood cremation.
EFFECTS
The water quality of Yamuna has deteriorated and grossly polluted due to municipal and industrial waste water disposal. With rapid industrialization and urbanization, increasing population growth and appearance of townships as an outcome of poor planning has resulted in production of waste without adequate disposal management and flowing directly into the water bodies disturbing the ecological balance. Existence of poisonous heavy metals in lakes, reservoir and river water is disturbing the lives of native people that rely on these water bodies for their regular supply of water and causing devastating effects on the ecological balance of the aquatic environment. The toxic river water being used for the irrigation of plants is being potential threat to food chain and to humans. The exposure to such heavy metals is causing adverse affects on human health and environment concern.
The down  stretch  of  the river along Haryana,  starts getting pollution load from  surrounding  industrial, domestic and agricultural areas and the situation gets worst as the River reaches the Delhi region. As per the latest status of water quality in India the Yamuna water quality at Okhla  and  Nizamudin  bridges  has been described as the  worst affected  and  was  placed seventh  on  the  list  of  rivers  with  highest  Biochemical Oxygen  Demand  (CPCB,  2007).  Due to the variety  of  problems  related  to  the  water  quality  of  Yamuna,  immediate  actions  for  maintaining  and improving the water quality are the need of the hour
CASE STUDY:
MANOJ MISRA V/S UNION OF INDIA & Ors
Original Application No. 6 of 2012 And M.A. Nos. 967/2013 & 275/2014
Facts of The Case
The application was instituted by Mr. Manoj Misra, an retired officer of Indian Forest Services as Applicant no. 1 in Original Application No. 6 of 2012 And M.A. Nos. 967/2013 & 275/2014 under section 14, 15 and 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Manoj Misra is not only a retired officer of Indian forest service but is also the convenor of the action plan ‘Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan’ and now is working as an social worker and is actively engaged in issues concerning society and environment at large.
The applicant had reached the Tribunal with the assertion in the respected application that Yamuna River is not only a scared river of India but it is also has various aquatic lives and is a lifeline for millions of people as there are directly or indirectly dependent on it for sustenance.
Various data collection and studies have depicted and informed about the deteriorating condition and quality of water of the Yamuna River. River Yamuna is critically threatened by unrelenting encroachments on its flood plain and by increasing population load, emanating of  domestic refuse, untreated  industrial effluents from the nearby areas and industries draining into Yamuna. The ecology of the river is being disturbed by the increasing pressure of alternative land use for various purposes at the flood plains and river bed of Yamuna. It is primarily for the growth of the economy at cost of the environment.
The basic subject matter of the application was the recent encroachment and dumping of building debris and other solid waste in the river bed/flood plain and even into the natural water body of River Yamuna.
According to the applicant, there is a water body situated in the river bed of Yamuna which is located across the road from colonies of East Delhi. The applicant visited the river beds and flood plain of River Yamuna in November 2011, it revealed that the said river bed and the downstream of the water body was covered with solid waste, including construction debris and household waste and the water bodies had become a dumping ground. The applicant made various representations to the Yamuna River Development Authority and informed it about the illegal actions on the part of the various Departments, specifically, the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, but no action was taken even after being brought into light. However, fresh debris continued to be dumped in the area along with which a number of “Jhuggies” (hutments) were also constructed illegally.
The applicant had paid successive visits to the site during November and December 2011 but the dumping activities had only increased with time. The applicant had made all the possible efforts to move the authorities about their duties vested in them to prevent illegal activities.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986  promulgated the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 which clearly provides the entire mechanism for management of solid waste and respective responsibilities of the State Government, Municipalities and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee. Respondent authorities had failed to discharge their duties to manage and regulate the dumping of municipal and other solid waste on the flood plain, river bed and in the river itself. There had been illegal and indiscriminate dumping of solid waste in the natural water body in the river bed of Yamuna that had been recklessly polluted and ecology damaged in the area.
According to the applicant, all inhabitants of the area have a right to life which is broadly interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, which is being violated. The authorities had miserably failed to discharge their duties to protect the River Yamuna, its river bed, flood plain and wildlife, in and around the river, from being polluted and being adversely affected. This was clear violation of the rights of the public at large in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There exists a clear constitutional mandate that not only requires the State to endure to safeguard environment and wildlife, but, also the citizens to improve the natural environment including forest, lake, river, etc. This case showed a glaring example of total failure of both the constitutional obligation of the State and fundamental duty by the citizens under Articles 48A and 51A(g) respectively of the Constitution of India. The applicant has also relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that: “right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
The applicant also invoked special jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 15 of the NGT Act, praying for complete restitution of the environment and ecology of the river bed and for making Yamuna pollution free.
The prayer before the tribunal in respect to the above mentioned application was that all the debris and other solid waste dumped in the river bed should be directed to be removed and the natural water body be restored to its original form. The authority should be directed to take appropriate steps for preventing the dumping of debris on the river bed and for taking all other steps that may be necessary in that behalf.
The respondent no.1 (Union of India) on the other hand took the stand the application that the application does not involve a substantial question relating to environment. However, it stated that the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, Rules stipulate specifications source segregation, collection, transportation, waste process disposal and other features of disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (for short ‘MSW’). Respondent had denied to representation received by the applicant. Further, it stated that according to them, it was the responsibility of the concerned State Pollution Control Boards to control and monitor the discharge of industrial effluents and to ensure that untreated industrial effluents was not discharged into the river. In order to address the immediate need for intervention in the interest of ecology and environment of River Yamuna, the Central Government had extended a hand-holding role, and The Yamuna Action Plan was being implemented. Government with assistance from Japan International Corporation Agency, in three States; Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi, was implementing the action plan in a phased manner. According to this respondent, the Municipal Authorities were required to set up waste processing and disposal facilities following the norms for handling MSW, i.e. collection, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of MSW.
The DDA i.e. respondent no. 3 had responded to this application stating that the DDA was not the person responsible and hardly any relief can be claimed against them under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. According to this respondent also, the responsibility lied on the municipalities and municipal authorities for dealing with MSW. The structure plan for Yamuna River Front Development (for short ‘YRFD’) Project had been developed by the DDA on the basis of value analysis and through study of the site and other factual data and details of the plan were provided. The purpose of the project is to facilitate the citizens of Delhi with vast recreational areas and simultaneously preserving, restoring and developing biodiversity of river basin. The areas under jurisdiction of DDA are under various stages of development and designs were meticulously made to reach the goal of achieving the objectives of YRFD Project. According to them, they were warning sign boards put up by them against dumping of malba and debris at the sites which are under its purview and jurisdiction.
According to the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain this application, as it did not involve any substantial question of law relating to environment, arising out of the implementation of enactments specified in the Schedule I to the NGT Act, 2010. On May 2012, a meeting of these respondents and the implementing/monitoring agencies was held and decisions were taken in relation to identification of areas generating solid and/or building waste in bulk, creation of special task force for patrolling of areas generating solid/building waste in bulk and illegal dumping sites, removal of dumped soil by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (for short the ‘DMRC’), issuance of public notice publicising the temporary waste deposit sites under the MCD, removal of waste lying along the roadside and submission of YRFD by the DDA to the Environment Department. These decisions were approved and some actions had been taken. In July, 2012 again the meeting took place to  review the progress and compliance of the decisions/directions which had emerged in the previous meeting, where the steps to be taken in future to prevent dumping of solid waste in the River Yamuna flood plain were stated. It was considered necessary to install barricades, identify areas generating bulk solid/building wastes and erection of further warning signage at the sides of Yamuna river. With these averments, these respondents said that there had been effective steps taken to control and prevent the menace of dumping debris in the flood plain and in the River Yamuna, including the MSW and construction debris.
The main issue was that was whether the environment pollution being caused by the dumbing of waste and debris in the Yamuna river? Whether the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of Indian Constitution, for the inhabitants of the area and the entire Delhi for that matter being violated?
The question that was required to be considered was to find out the most effective and practical way in which dumping could be stopped on the Flood Plain and the riverbed of Yamuna, as well as how these areas are to be restored and beautified so as to discourage further dumping of construction debris or waste in and around River Yamuna?
NGT had brought back the attention of the respondents to the seriousness of the environmental issue and ecological damage caused from the dumping of solid waste and debris in the river and on the flood plains polluting the sacred Yamuna river to dirty drains carrying sewage or communal waste. The disposal of pollutants in the river and unchecked developments in the near by areas as well as on floodplains are in direct violation of the Principle of Sustainable Development that has cause havoc and damage in the city of Delhi.
It was evident that the respondents were not questioning the seriousness of the problem rather they have been shifting the burden and the responsibility to one another. However, according the bench, respondent no. 6 i.e Municipal Corporation of Delhi  had failed to discharge its duties to prevent and control pollution of the river and restore the natural flow. There seemed to be a lack of institutional will amongst the authorities to implement the policies, schemes and decisions to preserve and restore River Yamuna and its banks.
The tribunal was of the opinion that there is substantial question of law with regard to environment pollution. The tribunal bench had directed all the respondents to take proper steps and adhere to the policies and directions to stop further encroachment and dumping of MSW and debris.
The Tribunal had directed State of UP, the DDA, Government of NCT of Delhi and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to start the removal of debris from the river banks and the water bodies mentioned in the petition near River Yamuna. All authorities are directed to identify the sites for dumping of debris and waste and in the meanwhile all construction debris is directed to be transported to the site at Gazipur.
Vice Chairman, DDA was directed to hold meeting within one week with all the concerned Authorities as well as with the State of UP to ensure that the directions are complied with and debris, which was stated to be in huge quantity, is removed from the riverbed. Tribunal had also order for constitution of a Special Committee chaired by the Secretary, MoEF and of which Additional Secretary, MoEF was also directed to be a Member as an Expert Committee to provide expert comments for the ‘Preservation and Beautification Plan’ of river bank and flood plain. The Tribunal also appointed Local Commissioners to visit the sites in the entire stretch of Yamuna that flows in Delhi and to report with regard to removal of construction debris and other waste. The reports from the Local Commissioners had shown that the directions issued by the Tribunal were not being carried out. There were trucks been noticed entering from different places where the wall was found punctured despite the police barricading. The reports submitted by LC also pointed out that DMRC was throwing its debris in the riverbed of Yamuna.
Tribunal directed all public authorities to ensure removal of debris and maintenance of proper log records for carrying of such debris to waste management sites.
The High Powered Committee was also constituted by the Tribunal and in its report noticed that nearly 37000 cu.m. of debris/construction materials was lying on the eastern bank and 53,000 cu.m. on the western bank near Nizamuddin bridge, Batla House, of the river Yamuna. The respective report was provided to all the authorities and they were directed to remove the debris thrown by the respective authorities and take them to the earmarked sites. The Tribunal had also directed all concerned authorities, including the Police, to ensure that no fresh debris or waste was thrown on the riverbed. The High Powered Committee had also considered development, beautification and restoration of river banks for entire River Yamuna from one end to another end of NCT of Delhi. It was felt that out of the total 9700 hectares area for River Front Development (‘O’ Zone) only 1452 hectares was available with DDA and the balance area is under agriculture and other leases, encroachments, etc. by different persons.
By the report filed by the LC, it was brought to the Tribunal’s notice that dumping continues on the river bank specially in and near Geeta Colony. It also stated that the debris had not been lifted from the sites and the new debris had been dumped at the bank of the River Yamuna. Debris was dumped in front of the residential block of the DMRC and in Geeta Colony.
It was also stated that nearly about 400 to 500 tonnes debris per month was being disposed of on the banks of river Yamuna in Geeta Colony during the night hours. Hence, the Tribunal issued directions for the Government of UP and NCT of Delhi to depute officers and keep an eye and vigil over dumping of debris on the river bank.
It was further noticed that nearly 5000 tonnes of debris had been lying on the western bank. The dispute was whether it belongs to DDA or DMRC. Both these authorities were directed to hold a meeting and mutually decide as to who is responsible to remove debris. But, in an event if no decision was mutually taken, both the parties would remove debris in equal share and report to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, invoked the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ and directed that any person found dumping debris on river bank in Geeta Colony site and for that matter in any site, would be liable to pay compensation of Rs. Five Lakhs for causing pollution and/or destroying the riverbed and flood plain and the time and man power taken for removal of the said debris from the site in question. The Tribunal also clarified that the sum of Rs. Five Lakhs for dumping, debris or waste on the river bank Yamuna would be the liability of the person responsible for dumping, even the truck owner, as well as person to whom the debris belongs. In other words, the person whose property was demolished and debris was generated and the contractors who were carrying on the business and were transporting the debris.
With the orders of the Tribunal, the debris thrown by DMRC and DDA had been completely removed and only some smaller debris remained which was also agreed to be cleared.
Tribunal issued notice to The Irrigation Department of UP which was throwing its debris at Thokar No. 11&13 and the solid waste is also being thrown along side of Noida link road towards Geeta Colony. The authorities were directed to clean and remove both construction debris and MSW.
The Learned Local Commissioners in their final report confirmed that the debris dumped by the authorities and people living in jhuggies had been removed and in furtherance all the committees and authorties were directed to file the report before the Tribunal.