Author: Manvi Tokas, The NorthCap University
INTRODUCTION
India as a democracy ensures fundamental rights to all its citizen which are documented in part III of the constitution of India(1950). The constitution makers of our country made article 32of our constitution as a way of redressal if/or our fundamental rights are infringed. In other words through article 32 one can approach the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated. Other than that, a tool of PIL(public interest litigation) has also been developed, though not explicitly defined by our constitution, it an alternative tool to approach courts in India when certain rights of a class or public in general are violated. Though sometimes this effective tool might get misused for personal interest as well, which in this case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, will be explored.
NAME OF THE CASE- SUBHASH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA
COURT- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH- JUSTICE K.N SINGH AND JUSTICE N.D OJHA
PETITIONER- SUBHASH SINGH
RESPONDENT- STATE OF BIHAR, BIHAR STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD , TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY AND WEST BOKARO COLLIERIES
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 9/1/1991
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The case involves a PIL, in which the petitioner approached the supreme court of India by the
way of article 32 guaranteed by part III of the constitution. The petitioner in this case was a
citizen of ‘Bokaro’ in Jharkhand. He filed a writ petition stating that the ‘West Bokaro
Collieries’, ‘Tata iron’ and ‘TISCO’ were polluting the nearby rivers. They were polluting the
water bodies nearby by discharging harmful wastes and chemicals. The petitioner(Mr.
Subhash) was highly concerned with the condition of these water bodies which were being
polluted and the ill effects of the same on the people living nearby to these water bodies and
using them for their daily uses. Such practices by the factory, by which they would be
discharging harmful and toxic material into the river was extremely polluting. This activity as
the petitioner pointed out curbed the right of the people living around the river; and as stated
in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India1, right to clean water as a fundamental right of all.
Therefore, this polluting act of the companies was challenged by the petitioner in this case. Mr. Subhash sought to get an injunction against the companies to safeguard the water form pollution. Therefore, the case revolves around the petition filed by the petitioner in the supreme court to solve the problem of water pollution of the water bodies as well as to collect slurries from the factories who are polluting the river.
ISSUES RASIED-
Is the petition made the petitioner maintainable under article 32 of the constitution?
Has the petition been filed for the interest of the public or for personal interest?
Has the state board of pollution control taken enough steps and measures to ensure the
purity of the rivers?
CONTENTIONS BY THE PARTIES-
PETITIONER- The petitioner in this case has approached the supreme court of India
through the way of a way of PIL under article 32 of the constitution; for the injustice the people were facing at the hands of the factories. These factories were responsible for the discharge of slurry waste into the water bodies which made the water unfit for use and consumption for the people living nearby. The petitioner therefore wanted the Bokaro water collieries and TISCO to be responsible for providing people with injustice in the Hazaribagh district of Bihar. The petitioner contended the fact that the parliament had established bodies responsible for keeping the purity of the water, which he contended were not working properly for the same. He stated that the state board of pollution control is responsible for keeping an eye on the purity of the water under section 17 of the water prevention and control act.
Section 24 of the same act also established that ‘no institution or entity shall intentionally cause or allow any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to a water stream’. Keeping this in hand the petitioner held Tata Iron and Steel Co. (respondent no.5) being responsible for the pollution by their works of mining and other operations in Jamshedpur and the West Bokaro Water collieries having their operations done in the region of Bokaro. The companies had being following the process of ‘froth floatation’ which involved the extraction of coal and then further processing it into ash contents3. Further water that if left out from the washing is carried out through pipes into storage ponds where the slurry is made out to settle at the bottom and further the pond is dewatered. The petitioner states that the additional water that is the slurry discharged from the washeries into the river bed or at times settles into the land around it, out if which one land belonged to the petitioner. The slurry or the waste also settles near about the agricultural area causing the release of carbonaceous chemicals into the soil which impacts its fertility. The same waste also makes the water unfit for the daily uses for the public at large. The petitioner also blames the Pollution Control Board, State of Bhar and State Pollution Control Board for not doing their duties to control pollution. Therefore, he seeks relief for the damages from the court.
RESPONDENT- The respondent in the given case, that is the state control board, state of
Bihar, director of collieries and TISCO denied the allegations imposed on them. The Bihar
states pollution board stated that the TISCO operates within the framework of section 24 and
254 . All the activities done by the company was in the purview of the sections and that the
company constantly made supervisions to make sure that the waste discharged did not effect
the purity of the water. The state control boards of Bihar contended how it made notices to the water collieries to keep a check over the quality of waste being discharged into the river; as well as it had ordered the company to use low settling tanks to make sure there was proper
settlement of solid wastes. The board also contends how they has made this into the notice of
the boards that the samples of their wastes had to be tested and reports had to submitted to keep a check over the waste and their potential harm to the quality of water. Further, the board contends that after the filing of the writ petition an inspection was done for the four companies all it was found that ponds had been constructed and that the work for strengthening the embankment was on the way. The boards mentioned how there was a check over the slurry and sludges and that now there was significant amount of waste being carried into the river, therefore there was no such eminent concern over the pollution of the rivers or the soil’s fertility being harmed.
JUDGMENT-
Based on the facts of the case, the court in the same observed that there was no proper evidence in the case against the respondent. Without full proof or some concrete evidence the court decided that; as no evidence that suggested that the companies had been polluting the river of Bokaro was presented in the court, at the prima facie no case against the respondent existed.
Other than that, it was also found that the petitioner in this case ie. Subhash Kumar was a
businessman and has being buying slurry from respondent number 4 and 5 for many years.
After a while as, the company stopped giving him slurry he got greedy and started threatening
the companies. Upon this denial, the petitioner continued to get slurry from the company in an illegal manner; and therefore a criminal case against him was filed under 379 and 411 under IPC, 1860 that was R/W section 6 of Essential Commodities Act, 19555. This case against him has been pending under the court of judicial class of first class magistrate in the court of Hazaribagh. The petitioner as a revenge had initiated many proceedings against the respondent company including this one of filing a writ petition in the supreme court. All these evidence as presented in the court made it sufficient for the judges to believe that the petitioner has no public interest of helping the community at large rather his own greedy interest of taking a revenge against the companies. As well as, the court observed that that the state pollution boards has taken all effective steps and measures to make sure the effective management of the river pollution.
RATIO DECIDENDI-
The court observed that while the tool of Public Interest Litigation has been developed as an
effective tool to safeguards the rights of the public, its misuse for private interests is not
acceptable by any court. The same had been the situation in this case as well wherein the
petitioner, Subhash Kumar, had filed a writ petition in the supreme court for his own private
interests of taking revenge from the respondent companies.
Though the petitioner through the petition was trying to protect his rights under article 21 of
the constitution which has been guaranteed by our fundamental rights as laid down in many
cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India and other
cases which has interpreted article 21 and include right to sleep, right to a clean environment
etc. The contention by the petitioner in which he held the companies and the state pollution
control board responsible for not taking enough measures to keep a check over the quality of
purity of water, was not proved with sufficient evidence to hold them accountable for the same. Along with that, the court observed the series of circumstances of the petitioner which included him illegally buying sludges and slurry from the respondent 4 and 5; and having a pending case in the Hazaribagh court. The petitioner then was observed filing multiple cases against the companies including the writ petition in the supreme court, which highlighted his personal grudge and interest against the respondent in the given case.
Therefore, the lack of prima facie in the case against the respondent, the court felt no need to
hold the respondent liable and continue any further with the case.
It is duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is
not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court for personal matters under the garb-of the public interest litigation, referring to
cases like Pandey v. State of west Bengal, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India.
Due to the misuse done by the petitioner in this given case, the court fined Subhash Kumar of
rupees 5,000 which were to be paid to respondents.
ANALYSIS
Subhash Kumar v. Union of India, as a case explores the misuse of the PIL as the petitioner in
this case, filed a writ petition in the supreme court as a way of taking revenge and for his own
personal interest. Such an act was totally unacceptable in the court. Further, the contentions.
made by the petitioner about the companies and the state of Bihar and its board of pollution
control being responsible for the hampering of the purity of the water in the region of Bokaro
were not proved as there was not sufficient proof to hold them accountable for any wrong. It
was in fact proved in the court that the state pollution control board had taken all the appropriate steps to make sure the quality of the sludge and slurry being discharged. The companies also contended the allegations made by the petitioner, as they had taken enough steps to make sure they did not pollute the river in the region by their sludge and slurry waste. The court observed the chain of circumstances by the petitioner and found that he had been a businessman and in the past used to buy slurry from the respondent 4 and 5, after not being given sludge he required he started taking it in an illegal manner. Upon receiving complaints against him from the companies and a pending case in the Hazaribagh court, the petitioner started taking revenge and filed many cases and complaints against the companies. It was quite obvious to the court that the writ petition filed in the supreme court was all part of his personal interest and did not have any legal standing. The case was therefore dismissed and the petitioner was imposed a fine of 5,000 rupees that had to be paid to respondents.
CONCLUSION
The case of Subhash Kumar v. Union of India(1991) stands as a landmark judgment and a very important precedent for the misuse of public interest litigation (PIL). Though an effective tool for the betterment of the society at large its misuse for personal interest as happened in this case was highly unacceptable by the court. The case through its righteous judgment showcased how proper evidences are very important for a case and to hold any authority liable as well as the misuse of PIL being immoral and wrong, for which any court will and as in this case as well did take strong action.
FAQS
What is meant by PIL?
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means a case or petition filed before a court to protect, safeguard or enforce public interest. PILs are filed to resolve a problem affecting the legal rights of a community or the public at large
Who can file a PIL?
All Indian citizens or organisations can file a public interest litigation petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
How much it costs to file a PIL?
The court fee for filing a Public Interest Litigation is Rs.50 per respondent.
