Case Note & Summary
The judgment dealt with an interlocutory application in the public interest litigation M.C. Mehta v. Union of India concerning environmental protection of Badkhal and Surajkund lakes in Haryana. In an earlier order dated 10 May 1996, the Supreme Court had directed that no construction of any type be permitted within a five-kilometre radius of the two tourist resorts, and that all open areas be converted into green belts. The present application was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad, Haryana Urban Development Authority, and builders with interests in the area, seeking modification or clarification of that direction because it threatened vested rights and would cause substantial financial losses to plot-holders and ongoing construction. The Haryana Pollution Control Board had notified ambient air quality standards on 11 April 1994, which prescribed stringent norms for sensitive areas. The Board recommended that a five-kilometre area around tourism centres be notified as a sensitive area. The Court had earlier, by order dated 13 September 1994, directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with jurisdiction over the National Capital Region, which included the area of the two lakes. Counsel for the builders, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, argued that banning construction within one kilometre of the lakes was arbitrary and not based on technical reasons; he pointed to coastal regulations which prohibited construction only within 200 to 500 metres and contended that restricting construction only around these two lakes violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court rejected these contentions. It relied on an inspection report of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) dated 20 April 1996, which described the lakes as monsoon-fed water bodies, their catchment areas, geological features, and archaeological significance. The report indicated that large-scale construction in the vicinity could disturb rain water drains, affect water level and quality, and damage aquifers and hydrology. The Court noted that the carrying capacity of eco-systems differs from area to area, and preventive measures must be tailored to local environmental conditions. The Court reiterated that the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of Indian environmental law, deriving from Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution and accepted as customary international law. It quoted its earlier decision in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh as well as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 463 to emphasize that environmental protection takes priority over economic interests. After considering plans marked Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which proposed green belts around the lakes, the Court clarified the earlier direction. It ordered that no construction of any type be permitted within the green belt area shown in those exhibits, except a very small area for recreational and tourism purposes with prior approval of the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. It further directed that no construction be permitted outside the green belt up to one kilometre radius of the lakes, but exempted plots already sold or allotted before 10 May 1996 in developed areas. Unallotted plots could be sold only with prior approval of the Authority. Any person owning land could construct a residential house for personal use up to two and a half storeys, subject to building bye-laws; village residents could similarly extend or reconstruct their houses. Buildings or houses under construction based on sanctioned plans before 10 May 1996 were not affected. All permitted constructions required clearance from the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board before occupation certificates were issued. Development schemes and plans for all types of buildings in the area from one kilometre to five kilometres radius of the lakes (excluding Delhi areas) required prior approval of the Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. The Court thus balanced environmental protection with the protection of certain vested rights, while maintaining strict regulatory oversight.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle - Sustainable Development - Constitution of India, Articles 21, 47, 48A, 51A(g); Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - The Court held that the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are essential features of sustainable development and are part of Indian environmental law, derived from constitutional mandates and customary international law. The Court reiterated that the State must anticipate, prevent and attack environmental degradation, and lack of scientific certainty cannot be used to postpone preventive measures. Held that the onus of proof lies on the developer or industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign (Paras 1-6). B) Environmental Law - Construction Ban Around Tourist Lakes - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - The Court clarified its earlier direction of 10 May 1996 restricting construction within 5 km radius of Badkhal and Surajkund lakes. It directed that no construction of any type be permitted within the green belt area shown in Exhibits A and B, except a very small area for recreational and tourism purposes with prior approval of the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. Held that large-scale construction in the vicinity of the lakes would disturb rain water drains, affect water level and quality, and harm aquifers and hydrology, and therefore restrictions were necessary (Paras 1-6). C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Equality - Area-Specific Environmental Restrictions - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The Court rejected the argument that restricting construction only around Badkhal and Surajkund while not extending such restrictions to other lakes violated Article 14. The Court reasoned that the functioning of ecosystems and environmental carrying capacity differ from area to area, and preventive measures must be tailored to the specific environmental surroundings. Held that the restriction was not arbitrary and was based on technical data from NEERI and expert opinions (Paras 1-6). D) Environmental Law - Sustainable Development - Concept as Part of Law of the Land - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - The Court quoted Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and affirmed that sustainable development, defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, has been accepted as part of Indian law. Held that economic development must be balanced with ecological preservation, and environmental priorities override financial interests (Paras 1-6). E) Environmental Law - Prior Approvals for Construction and Development - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - The Court directed that all permitted constructions must obtain clearance from the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board before occupation certificates are issued; and that all development schemes and building plans in the area from 1 km to 5 km radius of the lakes (excluding Delhi areas) require prior approval of the Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. Held that such controls were essential to preserve the environment and ecology of the area (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction banning construction within 5 km radius of Badkhal and Surajkund lakes should be modified or clarified; whether banning construction within 1 km radius was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; whether the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle apply; and how to balance environmental protection with vested rights of landowners and builders.
Final Decision
The Court clarified direction 4 of the order dated 10 May 1996. It directed that no construction of any type be permitted within the green belt area as shown in Exhibits A and B, except a very small area for recreational and tourism purposes with prior approval of the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. No construction was permitted outside the green belt up to one km radius of the lakes, but this did not apply to plots already sold or allotted prior to 10 May 1996 in developed areas. Unallotted plots could be sold with prior approval of the Authority. Any person owning land could construct a residential house for personal use up to two and a half storeys subject to building bye-laws. Village residents could extend or reconstruct their houses up to two and a half storeys. Buildings or houses already under construction based on sanctioned plans prior to 10 May 1996 were not affected. All permitted constructions required clearance from the Authority, Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board before occupation certificates were issued. Development schemes and plans for all types of buildings in the area from one km to five km radius of the lakes (excluding Delhi areas) required prior approval of the Central Pollution Control Board and Haryana Pollution Control Board. The Court rejected the contention that the restrictions were arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
Law Points
- Precautionary Principle is part of Indian environmental law
- Polluter Pays Principle is part of Indian environmental law
- Sustainable Development is part of the law of the land
- State must anticipate prevent and attack environmental degradation
- Lack of scientific certainty cannot postpone measures
- Onus of proof lies on developer to show environmental benignity
- Carrying capacity of eco-systems justifies area-specific restrictions
- Articles 21 47 48A and 51A(g) mandate environmental protection
- Construction near lakes can harm water bodies and ecology
- Environmental restrictions are not arbitrary under Article 14
