By Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain
The subject of air pollution and human rights is very vast and wide and it is emerging on day-to-day problems and experiences suffered by human beings. No life is possible without oxygen. Therefore, it is our duty to control pollution to save our future generations and lives. With the increase in population, globalization, and industrialization, air pollution has become one of the major health hazards and environmental issues of concern. Millions of premature deaths occur each year as a result of exposure to air pollutants.
The Indian Judiciary has adopted a proactive role with regard to environmental laws. It has given wider interpretations to environmental laws to give a Human Rights-based approach to environmental protection and thus, has cast light on the ‘evolutive meaning approach’ over the ‘fixed meaning approach’ to constitutional adjudication. Judgments relating to air pollution issues have provided a great deal of momentum to environmental problems which included improving air quality problems.
According to WHO Reports, lungs problem have increased many folds. The latest assessment by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2014 concluded that worldwide seven million premature deaths annually is linked to air pollution. In addition to the impacts on human health, air pollution also causes environmental degradation such as acid rain, eutrophication, haze, ozone depletion, crop and forest damage, and global climate change by an increase in temperature. India has suffered the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in which a number of citizens lost their lives and thousands are still suffering from health and respiratory diseases.
Concept of Human Rights in the International arena and India
In a layman’s language, human rights are a set of essential and fundamental rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of their nationality, place of residence, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. As loosely as that understanding might be, it actually reflects on a basic level, the essence of the two words that came together to form the term. Human refers to all human beings, white or black, young or old, fit or ill, irrespective of their age, ethnicity, nationality, ideology, orientation, sex or creed. Rights refer to a minimum of the privileges that one compulsorily deserves irrespective of his or her age, ethnicity, nationality, ideology, orientation, sex or creed. Rights are usually legally enforceable in character and application. Human rights are therefore privileges and opportunities to which a person is entitled by the simple virtue of the fact that he is a human being.
The international doctrine of human rights is one of the most ambitious parts of the settlement of World War II. These rights were first recognised internationally under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and specified by the United Nations in 1948 to provide a global understanding of how individuals should be treated. Since then, the language of human rights has become a common language of the practice of human rights for guidance in understanding the central idea.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The efforts of the United Nations toward international human rights protection began in the wake of the 1940s and resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. 48 out of the 58 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of the content of the UDHR, 8 abstained from voting and 2 were absent.
The signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, was a momentous occasion. Representatives of 48 countries came together to make a profound statement on the value and dignity of human life. After several drafts and much debate, the final version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emerged. It was a list of basic rights that the international community agreed upon as the inborn (inherent) legacy due to all human beings on earth.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects fundamental beliefs shared by countries around the world regarding human rights. The document is divided into two sections- the preamble, which describes the reasons for creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 30 Articles that list basic human rights.
There are two main themes contained in the preamble. The first is the belief that in order to support a better quality of life for all, laws that protect human rights must be enacted, enforced and respected universally. The second is the belief that, by upholding human rights, “freedom, justice, and peace in the world” can be achieved. In short, respecting human rights means a better world for everyone. There are 30 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, covering various categories of human rights, such as basic rights (e.g., life, security of the person, freedom); political rights (e.g., right to vote); civil rights and liberties (e.g., freedom of opinion and expression); equality rights (e.g., the right to be free from discrimination); economic rights (e.g., the right to fair wages and safe working conditions); social rights (e.g., access to education and adequate health care); and cultural rights (e.g., the right to speak your native language and practice your culture). Although each of these rights may differ from one another, they are all considered to be part of an indivisible set of human rights.
Active Role of Judiciary in Enforcement of Environment Laws and its Protection
The Supreme Court has taken up all the matters of violation of environmental laws as a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 21, Right to Life and entertains even direct writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
There is always a conflict between environmental rights and industrialisation but the Supreme Court in most matters has taken the view of supporting the environment and has not shrunk its responsibility by even closing down industries affecting large. Some of the important judgments on air pollution are given below:
Bhopal Gas Tragedy
To have industrialisation and economic development of Bhopal, a subsidiary company of Union Carbide Corporation, a parent company based in the United States, came to India as Union Carbide India Ltd. Implemented a project for the manufacture of widely used pesticide. In the said Indian subsidiary, the Government of India held 22% of the shares. Unfortunately, on account of a serious accident on the night of December 3, 1984, about 36 tonnes of poisonous MIC gas got released into the air of Bhopal and caused disaster as already discussed above. Bhopal gas leak tragedy is described as the greatest disaster for human beings that has arisen in the industrial world.
A large number of cases were heard over a long period of time. In February 1985, the Union of India filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, United States of America. As Union Carbide Corporation Limited was an American parent company, the lawsuit was settled out of court. But Judge JF.Keenan, who heard the case, refused to hear the case. As he described it, “the Indian legal system is in a better position than the American judiciary to determine the cause and responsibility for tragic events.” When the union of India joined the case, American lawyers representing the defendant multinational company argued that the concept of parens patriae was not used in the United States and could not be prosecuted.
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claim) Act No 21 of 1985 is the first Act of its kind passed by India to provide relief to the victims of the Bhopal tragedy. As stated in the preamble to the Act, the object of the Act is as follows. “An Act to confer certain powers on the Central Government to secure that claims arising out of, or connected with, the Bhopal gas leak disaster are dealt with speedily, effectively, equitably and to the best advantage of the claimants and for matters incidental thereto.” The Act contains 12 basic sections. Section 3 deals with the powers of the Central Government which provided that the Central Government should appear for proceedings in this case within or outside the country. In exercise of power under this Act, the Union of India represented the victim in a number of cases under the status of parens patriae.
In 1987, Union Carbide Corporation Limited was ordered to pay 350 crores as compensation in a case filed before the Bhopal District Court. Judge Mw. Deo Shri ruled that “the poor people who have been affected by the tragedy are discouraged from pursuing the ultimate goal of justice and compensation as they have not received any legal relief so far.” The decision of the District Court was challenged in the Jabalpur High Court in 1988 and the temporary compensation was reduced to 2500 million.
In an appeal by Union Carbide Corporation in 1989, the Supreme Court ordered Union Carbide Corporation and Union Carbide Indian Limited to pay $ 470 million in full and final damages. But there were serious criticisms of how fair this compensation is and how much it hinders the tendency to calculate future compensation.
In the review proceeding in 1991 the Supreme Court reconsidered its 1989 decision and decided that criminal proceedings would be instituted against Union Carbide and also directed them to fund the construction of a hospital to treat chronic illnesses caused by gas leaks. This decision of the court was more justified as an intervention of the judiciary as a social welfare state, to restore the health of the victims of this catastrophic socially incalculable tragedy.
In 1991, a criminal case was filed against Warren Anderson, the head of Union Carbide Corporation Limited. Warren Anderson, chairman of Union Carbide Corporation Limited, is found guilty under sections 304 (A), 336,337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 35.
Oleum Gas Leak Case – MC Mehta v. UOI – AIR (1987) SC 965; (1987) 1 SCC 395
Immediately after Bhopal Gas Tragedy, another gas leakage which could have proved equally disastrous took place in one of the largest and most profitable industrial establishments in India, Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. that industry was situated in the densely populated area of Delhi, i.e., Kriti Nagar whereabout 2 lakhs people were residing in and around and in the said densely populated area, hazardous products like caustic soda, oleum and chlorine were being manufactured.
A writ petition was filed by a social activist and lawyer, Shri MC Mehta before Supreme Court for seeking closure and relocation of the industrial establishment to a place where it would not pose a threat to people’s life. In the beginning, the Supreme Court did not pass any direction to close down the industries, however, on December 4 and 6, 1985 the gas leakage incident took place which caused a huge amount of harm to the residents including the death of a lawyer. The leakage was a result of the bursting of the tank containing the gas which occurred due to the collapse of the structure on which the tank was built. This caused widespread fear among the residents.
This resulted in the filing of a case by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association for compensation for all the citizens who suffered damage due to the accident. As the case involved important questions, it was referred to a larger bench.
In the said matter, the Supreme Court opened the industry on a temporary basis with the following conditions:
- The Central Pollution Control Board must appoint an Inspector for the purpose of inspection and to see that the pollution levels are under control according to the standards set by the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
- To constitute a safety committee for all the employees.
- The industry must publicize the appropriate methods of usage, disposal and treatment of chlorine.
- To train and instruct the employees regarding the safety of the plant through audio-visual services and install loudspeakers to alert neighbours in case of gas leakage.
- To make sure that the workers must use safety equipment such as belts and helmets.
- That the workers of Shriram furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Limited, that in case of escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen or people living in the vicinity, the Chairman will be “personally responsible” for payment of compensation of such death or injury.
It was for the first time in this matter that the Supreme Court held that the private industrial establishment was responsible for such accidents and was ordered to pay compensation. It was also held that a writ petition is maintainable even against the private establishment for non-compliance with statutory provisions, rules and regulations.
The Supreme Court in the writ petition filed by MC Mehta for closing down of crushers at the periphery near Faridabad and Delhi passed directions to close down stone crushers. A fresh petition to close down the hazardous and intensive industries in Delhi was filed by MC Mehta again in which the Supreme Court not only directed to close down the hazardous and intensive industries in Delhi but also directed them to be relocated outside NCR.
The Directions of the Supreme Court for closing down crushers on the periphery of Delhi and Faridabad in 1985 and thereafter directions to close down hazardous and intensive industries was a welcome step.
The Supreme Court also permitted to change of the land use from industrial to commercial/residential and directed the industries to surrender 57% part of their land. The Apex court also allowed the sale of balance land and pay the compensation or the labour charges to the workers.
Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India – (1993)
In Tarun Bharat Sangh, the Supreme Court directed the closure of mining activities in the forest area of the Alwar region. The Supreme Court further directed the closure of the mine activities affecting the environment in the Aravalli hills ranges.
Taj Trapezium Case, Agra – MC Mehta v. UOI – 1997
Taj Trapezium refers to an area of 10,400 sq. km. trapezium shaped area around Taj Mahal which covers Agra, Mathura, Firozabad etc. Taj Mahal was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1983. Environmental Activist MC Mehta filed a writ petition alleging that the monument’s marble had turned yellow. The main allegation in the writ petition was against the Mathura refineries whose emission gases were causing harm to Taj. Along with the writ petition, a report of the Expert Committee called “Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura Refinery” (Varadharajan Committee) published by the Government of India in 1978 was annexed.
The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, New Delhi had published its report on (Control of Urban Pollution Series) titled “Inventory and Assessment of Pollution Emission in and Around Agra-Mathura Region”. It categorized the industries in Agra and its outskirts into seven different categories. They gave some statistics about the pollution levels which were quite high. Two thermal power stations were closed down.
The Supreme Court thereafter on January 8, 1993, after considering the report on the ‘Control of Urban Pollution’ by the Central Pollution Control Board reached the conclusion that the main sources of pollution were iron foundries, Ferro-alloyed industries, rubber processing, lime processing, engineering, chemical industry, brick refractory and vehicles.
The Supreme Court got the survey conducted in Taj Trapezium. The U.P. Pollution Control Board (U.P.P.C.B.) after issuing notices, identified about 511 industries around Taj. The Supreme Court separately dealt with emission control measures in Mathura Refinery and directed the closing down of industries which were using coal as a fuel. The foundries at Agra and glass industries at Firozabad were seriously affected. The Supreme Court after taking the report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) impleaded the gas authority of India as a party to the proceedings and after considering the NEERI report and feasibility report from the Gas Authority of India, directed these industries to change their fuel from coal to natural gas. Initially, the glass industries were apprehensive about the feasibility of gas as a fuel in place of coal but on my persuasion (I was appearing for both, the foundries at Agra and glass industries at Firozabad which were a part of Chambers of Commerce), they agreed. After using natural gas as fuel in some of the industries at Firozabad, the industry found gas more suitable than coal and accepted the technology and found that the glass so produced from gas was of better quality. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also closed down Brick Kilns in Taj Trapezium.
In the Taj Trapezium matter, the Supreme Court applied precautionary principles and polluter pays principles as laid down in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 1996 as under:
The Supreme Court held, “We are of the view that the ‘precautionary principle and ‘the polluter pays principle are essential features of ‘sustainable development. The ‘Precautionary Principle in the context of municipal law – means:
(i) Environmental measures – by the State Government and the statutory authorities – must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The ‘onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.
12. ‘The Polluter Pays Principle” has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212. The Court observed:
‘……we are of the opinion that any principle evolved on this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country.’
The Court ruled that:
….once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, then such a person is liable to make good for the loss caused to the other person, irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.’
The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land…..”
The Court accepted both the principles as the law of the land and consequently applied them to the present case.
The Supreme Court also passed the following directions:
“ We, therefore hold that the above-mentioned 292 industries shall as per the schedule indicated hereunder change over to natural gas as an industrial fuel. The industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connections – for any reason – shall stop functioning with the aid of coke/coal in the TTZ and may relocate themselves as per the directions given by us hereunder.
The Supreme Court directed that-(i) The 292 industries listed above shall approach/apply to the GAIL before February 15, 1997 por grant of industrial gas connection.
(ii) The industries which are not in a position to obtain gas connections and also the industries which do not wish to obtain gas connections may approach/apply corporation before February 28, 1997, for allotment of alternative plots in the industrial estates outside TTZ.
(iii) The GAIL shall take the final decision with respect to the applications for the grant of gas connections by 31-3-1997 and communicate the allotment letters to the individual industries.
(iv) Those industries which neither apply for gas connection nor for alternative industrial plots shall stop functioning with the aid of coke/coal in the TTZ with effect from 30-4-1997. Supply of coke/coal to these industries shall be stopped forthwith. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police shall have this order complied with.
(v) The GAIL shall commence supply of gas to the industries by 30-6-1997. As soon as the gas supply to an industry commences, the supply of coke or coal to the said industry shall be stopped with immediate effect.
(vi) The corporation/government shall finally decide and allot alternative plots before 31-3-1997 to the industries which are seeking relocation.
(vii) The relocating industries shall set up their respective units in the new industrial estates outside TTZ beyond December 31, 1997. The closure by December 31, 1997, is unconditional and irrespective of the fact whether the new unit outside TTZ is completely set up or not.
(viii) The Deputy Commissioner, Agra and the Superintendent (Police) Agra shall effect the closure of all the industries on December 31, 1997 which are to be relocated by that date as directed by us.
(ix) the UP state government/corporation shall render all assistance to the industries in the process of relocation. The allotment of plots, construction of factory buildings, and issuance of any license/ permissions shall be expedited and granted on a priority basis.
(x) in order to facilitate the shifting of industries from TTG the state government and all other authorities shell set up a unified single agency consisting of all the departments concerned to act as a nodal agency to sort out all the problems of such industries. The single window facility shall be set up by the UP state government within one month from today. The registry shall communicate this direction separately to the chief secretary, secretary and chairman and managing director of UPSIDC along with a copy of the judgement. We make it clear that no further time shall be allowed to set up the single window facility.
(xi) The state government shall frame a scheme for the use of the land which could become available on account of shifting/ relocation of the industries. The state government may seek guidance in this respect from the order of this court in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 351.
(xii) The shifting industries on the relocation in the new industrial estates shall be given incentives in terms of the provisions of the Agra master plan and also the incentives which are normally extended to new industries in new industrial estates.
(xiii) The workmen employed in the above-mentioned 292 industries shall be entitled to the rights and benefits…….
Another landmark judgement passed by the Supreme Court was regarding Smoking in public places. The judgement passed in Murli Deora v. Union of India in (2001) set standards to give some reprieve to passive smokers.
Fumes from cigarette smoke contain thousands of chemicals that cause air pollution, some of which are extremely harmful to health. Non-smokers who live with people who smoke, particularly the elderly and young children, may suffer harmful effects from second-hand smoke.
The Petitioner, Murli S. Deora, filed a public interest petition on the basis of the right to life and liberty espoused in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Smoking in public locations in front of non-smokers can cause internal injuries such as lung cancer, asthma, and chronic bronchitis. As a result, smoking in public places is considered an offence because it kills the health of many passive smokers without their knowledge, so infringing on their right to enjoy a healthy life. In addition to the health implications, it has a negative impact on the environment. It pollutes the environment and contributes to the ecological sphere’s bad status.
The petitioner pointed out that tobacco smoking contains harmful contents including nicotine, tar, potential carcinogens, carbon monoxide, irritants, asphyxiates and smoke particles which are the cause of many diseases including cancer. It is alleged that three million people die every year as a result of an illness related to the use of tobacco products of which one million people belong to developing countries like India. The World Health Organisation is stated to have estimated that tobacco-related deaths can rise to a whopping seven million per year. According to this organisation, in the last half-century in developing countries alone smoking has killed more than sixty million people. Tobacco smoking also adds to air pollution. Besides cancer, tobacco smoking is responsible for various other fatal diseases to mankind.”
The Supreme Court, after considering various reports has directed as under:
“Realising the gravity of the situation and considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, we direct and prohibit smoking in public places and issue directions to the Union of India, State Governments as well as the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibiting smoking in public places, namely: Auditoriums, Hospital Buildings, Health Institutions, Educational Institutions, Libraries, Court Buildings, Public offices, Public Conveyances, including Railways.”
While prohibiting smoking in public places, the Supreme Court held that fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no one shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. In any case, there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be the helpless victims of air pollution. Realizing the gravity of the situation the Supreme Court while directing the prohibition of smoking in public places and issue directions to the Union of India, State governments as well as the union territory to take effective steps.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006) 10 SCC 491
In the matter of Govdavaran, a large number of orders were passed from time to time restraining all industrial and mining activities, cutting of trees, closure of sawmills, removal of wood from forest areas etc was passed. Now even no tree from the public area can be cut without permission of the prescribed authority
Burning of Diwali crackers – Arjun Gopal v. UOI (2019)
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court bringing to its notice the ill effects of burning firecrackers during Diwali and other festive occasions on the health of people. In the said matter, the Supreme Court passed various orders in 2017, and finally in 2019 as follows.
It was first considered in the case of Noise Pollution and certain directions were passed:
“It is hereby directed as under-
I. Firecrackers- In a comparison of the two systems, i.e. the present system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is more practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until replaced by a better system.
2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae for each type or category or class of firecrackers. The DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.
3. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two categories- (i) Sound emitting firecrackers, and (ii) Colour/light emitting firecrackers.
4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound emitting firecrackers between 10 pm and 6 am. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as the time on bursting of colour/light emitting firecrackers.
5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where the contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as stated on the box, the manufacturer may be held liable.
6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) The manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and not otherwise;(ii) The noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exported as per the export order; (iii) These firecrackers should have a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) They must carry a declaration printed thereon something like ‘not for sale in India’ or ‘only for export to country AB’ and so on.”
The matter was further considered by the Supreme Court in the Writ Petition filed by Arjun Gopal in which a large number of directions were given by the Supreme Court on September 12, 2017. The Supreme Court in its detailed judgment considered the suggestions made by the Union of India in the affidavit filed on August 21, 2018, and accepted the said suggestion and while balancing the two competing interests, passed directions that “The crackers with reduced emission (improved crackers) and green crackers, as mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II and III above only would be permitted to be manufactured and sold.
As a consequence, the production and sale of crackers other than those mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II and III are hereby banned.
The manufacture, sale and use of joined firecrackers (series crackers or laris) are hereby banned as the same causes huge air, noise and solid waste problems.
The sale shall only be through licensed traders and it shall be ensured that these licensed traders are selling those firecrackers which are permitted by this order.
No e-commerce websites, including Flipkart, Amazon etc., shall accept any online orders and affect online sales. Any such e-commerce companies found selling crackers online will be hauled up for contempt of court and the Court may also pass, in that eventuality, orders of monetary penalties as well. Barium salts in the fireworks are also hereby banned, The Apex Court directed.
Even those crackers which have already been produced but do not fulfil the conditions mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II and III above will not be allowed to be sold in Delhi and NCR.
PESO will ensure fireworks with permitted chemicals only be purchased/possessed/sold/used during Diwali and all other religious festivals, of any religion whatsoever, and other occasions like marriages, etc. It shall test and check for the presence of banned chemicals like Lithium/Arsenic/ Antimony/Lead/Mercury.
Directions Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 contained in the order dated September 12, 2017, shall continue to operate and are reiterated again.
On Diwali days or on any other festivals like Gurpurab etc., when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be from 8:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. only. On Christmas eve and New Year’s eve, when such fireworks start around midnight, i.e. 12:00 a.m., it would be from 11:55 p.m. till 12:30 a.m. only.”
The Court also directed due publicity and also fixed the personal responsibility of the station house officer (SHO) of the area concerned. The Supreme Court monitored the matter and passed appropriate directions from time to time.
Stubble burning and Air quality – MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020)
In the last 4-5 years, Delhi is suffering serious health hazards on account of stubble burning, and for that reason, in writ petition no. 13029/1985, IA No. 158128-129/2019 was filed. In the said IAs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the report of Mr Bhurelal and considered the seriousness and ill-effect of stubble (parali) burning and non-action by authorities.
The Supreme Court in its November 4, 2019 order directed that even when a single incident takes place of stubble burning, the Chief Secretary of State, District Collector, Tehsildars, Director General Police, IG/SP and other police officers shall be held responsible.
The Supreme Court passed 24 directions which include the appointment of a high-level committee, preparation of the comprehensive plan, preparation of scheme by the central government, preparation of scheme by Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, installation of smog towers and their use in the Delhi-NCR region.
The Apex Court also directed NCT Delhi, UP, Haryana, and Rajasthan state governments to identify places to dump plastic waste, industrial waste and other wastes with a direction to ensure that waste is not burnt and if it is used for processing/incineration and piled up waste should be removed in a time-bound way. The Court also directed the authorities of the concerned state to submit a status report of the penalty imposed and action taken on developers for violating norms regarding construction/demolition activities.
This article is taken from the Keynote address delivered by Senior Advocate S K Sharma at Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission on September 11, 2022.