Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & JAYANT NATH, JJ.
KAPIL CHOUDHARY & ANOTHER – Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5550 of 2015
Decided On : 26-04-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC, Mr. Shivam Chanana, Ms. Puja Mishra and Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for scientific evidence to substantiate claims of health hazards and the importance of compliance with established norms and policies.
Headnote:
Mobile Towers - Public Interest Litigation - [Telecom Act, 1885, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951] - The court discussed the health hazards of radiations from mobile phone towers and referred to various judgments of different high courts where similar contentions were rejected. The court emphasized the lack of scientific data to show harmful effects of mobile phone towers and the absence of violation of any norms by the respondent. The judgment highlighted the conclusions of the World Health Organization and scientific studies, emphasizing the absence of conclusive evidence of adverse health effects due to low-level RF emission from mobile phone towers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the removal of mobile towers installed in a residential area, citing health hazards and non-compliance with the policy of the Union of India. The respondents countered the allegations, citing studies and judgments rejecting similar contentions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition lacked material particulars and scientific evidence to substantiate the alleged health hazards of mobile phone towers. It emphasized the absence of violation of norms by the respondent and the conclusions of scientific studies and judgments rejecting similar contentions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged health hazards of radiations from mobile phone towers, non-compliance with the policy of the Union of India, and the lack of scientific evidence to support the petitioners' claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of scientific data to show harmful effects of mobile phone towers, the absence of violation of any norms by the respondent, and the conclusions of scientific studies and judgments rejecting similar contentions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for being without merit.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present public interest litigation is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the mobile towers installed in the residential area of village Tekhand, New Delhi with immediate effect.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are social workers living in Tekhand village, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi which is a village about 700 years old. It is urged that Mobile Phone Company has installed towers in the residential area which is contrary to the policy of respondent No. 1-Union of India. As per the policy, no mobile tower can be installed in a residential area. It is urged that despite the same, no action has been taken against the mobile towers. It is further stated that the buildings being old, the constructions are not in a position to bear the load of the towers. Stress is also laid on the fact that the presence of the towers will cause diseases on account of radiation that is emitted. It is stated that the people are already suffering from cancer and two persons, namely, Sh. Kishan and Sh. Zile Singh have died of cancer disease. Based on these submissions, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondent No. 1-Union of India have filed its counter affidavit pointing out that the contentions of the petitioners about there being any radiation or any emissions which are harmful to the health of the citizens are baseless. It is urged that many studies have been conducted on the health hazard of radiations of mobile phone towers/networks. These studies have been conducted under the aegis of WHO. The studies have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of adverse health effects due to low level of RF emission from mobile phone towers.
4. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of the High Courts of Kerala, Madras, Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, Delhi and Ahmedabad to contend that similar pleas have been rejected by all these High Courts.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Singh Jauhari vs. Union of India, Case No. 11275/2010 where certain observations have been made based on the report of Prof. Girish Kumar that people residing in the vicinity of cell towers may suffer from different diseases. Based on these observations, the Allahabad High Court had directed the Government of India to constitute a committee of five members to submit a report. On the basis of the report Government was to take necessary precautions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. He has also filed a compilation of various judgments of different high courts where such contentions raised have been rejected. The judgments relied upon are as follows:-
(i) Dhup Singh vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC P&H 12408
(ii) Reliance INFOCOM Ltd. vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat & Others, 2006 SCC Ker 247
(iii) K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy vs. Union of India, W.P. No. 24976 of 2008, Madras High Court
(iv) Muktipark Co-operative Society vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, SCA No. 5548 of 2014, Gujarat High Court.
(v) Ashwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, PIL No. 40535 of 2013, Allahabad High Court.
(vi) Resident Welfare Association vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) N. 8661 of 2015, Delhi High Court.
7. A perusal of the petition filed shows that it completely lacks material particulars. Except making allegations of ill effects of radiations from mobile phone towers, there is no attempt to substantiate or support the submissions.
8. The counter affidavit, on the other hand, has placed on record detailed facts to demonstrate that radiations from mobile phone tower are not known to have any adverse health effect. Some of the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit reads a
