http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 37

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 368-371 of 1999

Appeal (civil) 372 of 1999

Appeal (civil) 373 of 1999

PETITIONER:

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

PROF.M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.)AND ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/12/2000

BENCH:

M.J.Rao, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

M. JAGANNADHA RAO J.

On an earlier occasion, in this very case, this

Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board (I) Vs. Prof.

M.V.

Nayudu ( 1999(2) SCC 718) ( dated 27.1.1999) referred

to

the ’precautionary principle’ and the new rule of

’burden of proof’ in the matter of environmental

pollution. This Court in that judgment emphasised the

need for scientific inputs before adjudicating

complicated issues of pollution to environment. The

said

approach of this Court was based upon contemporary

trend

in the adjudication of environmental matters in

various

countries and was not intended to restrict the powers

of

this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India

to safeguard environment from pollution.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 37

Our efforts to get at the best scientific evidence

on the issues involved in the case, have yielded

satisfactory results in the sense that we have today

greater confidence about the correctness of our

conclusions and further that this is a fit case for

affirming the orders of the appellant ( Andhra Pradesh

Pollution Control Board) not to grant ’consent’ to the

seventh respondent ( M/s. Surana Oils & Derivatives

(India) Ltd.) under the statute for establishing its

industry. We are now more sure that, on facts, this

is a

pre-eminently fit case which requires grant of an

injunction to prevent irreversible pollution to the

drinking water reservoirs of Osman Sagar and Himayaat

Sagar catering to the needs of over 50 lakhs people,

in

Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Drinking water is of primary importance in any

country. In fact, India is a party to the Resolution

of

the UNO passed during the United Nations Water

Conference in 1977 as under:

"All people, whatever their stage of development and

their social and economic conditions, have the right to have

access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal

to their basic needs."

Thus, the right to access to drinking water is

fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State

under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to

its

citizens.

Adverting to the above right declared in the

aforesaid Resolution, in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs.

Union of India ( 2000(7) Scale 34 ( at p.124), Kirpal

J

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 3 of 37

observed:

"Water is the basic need for the survival of human

beings and is part of right of life and human rights as

enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....."

There is therefore need to take into account the

right to a healthy environment along with the right to

sustainable development and balance them.

Competing human rights to healthy environment and

sustainable development:

There is building up, in various countries, a

concept that right to healthy environment and to

sustainable development are fundamental human rights

implicit in the right to ’life’.

Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to

develop the concept of right to ’healthy environment’

as

part of the right to "life" under Article 21 of our

Constitution. [ See Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union

of

India ( 1984(3) SCC 161)]. This principle has now

been

adopted in various countries today.

In today’s emerging