Democratic Youth Federation of India vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 1247

S. H. KAPADIA, K. S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR
Democratic Youth Federation of India – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, Adv., Mr. Biju Raman, Adv., Mr. K. Bineesh, Adv., Ms. Usha Nandini, Adv., Ms. Meena C.R., Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jay Savla, Adv., Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv., For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv., For Maharashtra: Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Adv., Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv., For Sikkim: Mr. A. Mariarputham, AG.,Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adsv. Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., For Haryana: Mr. Manjit Singh,AAG. Ms. Vivekta Singh, Adv., Mr. Tarjit Singh, Adv., Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv., For Jharkhand: Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv., For Andhra Pradesh: Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Adv., Ms. Nirada Das, Adv., For Kerala: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Asdv. Mr. G. Prakash, Adv., Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv., For J&K:Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv., Mr. Suhas Joshi, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv., Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv., Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Adv., Ms. Rakhi Ray, Adv., Mr. Gopal Subramanium,SG. Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Asdv. Mr. Anand Verma, Adv., Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv., Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv., Mr. Anand Verma, Adv., Mr. D. Mohta, Adv., Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is moved in public interest highlighting the harmful effects caused by the continued use of Endosulfan on human beings and on the environment. Endosulfan is now used as a pesticide for the production of crops like paddy, sugarcane, cotton, mango, cashew etc. Few studies have been conducted in this area and its adverse effects on human health and environment has been reported. Some of the studies also indicate that Endosulfan is significantly associated with Neuro-behavioral disorders, Cognitive disorders, Hydrocephalus, Mental Retardation, Cortical blindness, Seizure disorders, Parkinson's disease etc.

2. Petitioner submits that it is a serious health hazard and the Court has got an obligation to protect human life, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was pointed out that its ill-effects have been clearly felt in the State of Kerala and its use has been completely banned in that State. We have gone through the report published by the Government of Kerala and the photographs appearing therein are highly disturbing.

3. Right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is the most fundamental

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1247

S. H. KAPADIA, K. S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMARDemocratic Youth Federation of India – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

S. H. KAPADIA, K. S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR
Democratic Youth Federation of India – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent