Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
May 12, 2000
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of India
Seat of court
New Delhi
Judge
Ahmad
Raju
Reference number
(2000) INSC 334
Language
English
Subject
Water
Keyword
Liability/compensation Polluter pays principle
Abstract
This decision related to an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in the same matter. The court had learned that the private company "Span Motels Pvt. Ltd." had built a motel on the bank of the River Beas on land leased by the Indian Government in 1981. Span Motels had also encroached upon an additional area of land adjoining this leasehold area, and this area was later leased out to Span Motels. The motel had used earthmovers and bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas, create a new channel and divert the river’s flow. The course of the river was diverted to save the motel from future floods. The case was finally decided by this court by its judgment dated December 13, 1996. The case had been placed before the court again only for determination of the quantum of pollution fine. The main case had been disposed of with the directions, among others, that the public trust doctrine was a part of the law of the land, the prior lease-deed in favour of the Motel were quashed, the Motel had to pay compensation for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area, and the Motel had to show cause why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed on the Motel. The Court analyzed the “polluter pays principle” including its history, international development and implementation in the national legal system. It emphasized that the polluter pays principle was widely accepted as a means of paying for the cost of pollution and control. The wrongdoer, the polluter, was under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment. However, it was difficult for the court to hold that the pollution fine could be imposed upon M/s Span Motel. In addition to the damages which had to be paid by M/s Span Motel, as directed in the main Judgment, it could not be punished with fine unless a certain procedure prescribed under the national law was followed and M/s Span Motel was tried for any of the offences contemplated by the Act and was found guilty. The notice issued to M/s Span Motel why pollution fine be not imposed upon them was, therefore, withdrawn. However, the court emphasized that the matter did not end there. Pollution was a civil wrong. By its very nature, it was a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who was guilty of causing pollution had to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He had also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution could also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. However, notice for exemplary damages had not yet been issued to M/s Span Motel. While withdrawing the notice for payment of pollution fine, the court directed a fresh notice be issued to M/s Span Motel to show cause why in addition to damages, exemplary damages be not awarded for having committed the acts set out in the main judgment.
Full text
334.html

References

Cites
Cited by