INDEX

i. Shubhash Kumar v. State of Bihar………………………………………………........1

ii. Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India………………………………..2
iii. Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railway Foundation…………………………………….2
iv. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India………………………………………………………..3
v. Alaknanda Hydropower Company Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi and Ors……………………....4
vi. State of Uttaranchal v. B.S.Chaufal and Ors………………………………….………5
vii. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath……………………………………………………….….6
viii. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India………………………………………….……........7
ix. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State……………………………..…........8
x. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors……9
xi. State of Kerala and Anr v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties……………………….10
xii. Samantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors………………………………………11
xiii. Mukesh Textile Mills Ltd. v. H. R. Subramanya Sastry……………………………..12
xiv. Donoghue v. Stevenson……………………………………………………………...13
xv. S. Jagannath v. Union of India…………………………………………………….…14
xvi. T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India………………………………….15
xvii. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India…………………………………………16
xviii. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu……………………….….17
xix. M.C.Mehta v. Union of India(Mussoorie Hills)……………………………………..18
xx. Enviro Legal Actions v. Union of India and Ors…………………………………….19
xxi. Ramji Patel v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch……………………………..20
xxii. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors…………………………….21
Supreme Court of India
Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 January, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
Author: K Singh
Bench: Singh, K.N. (J)
PETITIONER:
SUBHASH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1991

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J)

OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:
1991 AIR 420 1991 SCR (1) 5
1991 SCC (1) 598 JT 1991 (1) 77
1991 SCALE (1)8

ACT:
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974: Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26.
Constitution of India, 1950:Article 21-Right to live includes right to enjoyment of pollution
free water and air- A citizen has a right to invoke Article 32 for removing pollution.

Judgement:

Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court.
It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of a citizen.
Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art, 32 of
the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the
quality of life.
Gujarat High Court
Narula Dyeing & Printing Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 Guj 185
Author: R Abichandani
Bench: R Abichandani

13. Thus, a mere consent order issued by the State Board under Section 25(2) did not entitle the
applicant to discharge trade effluents and it was incumbent upon the applicants to comply with
the conditions mentioned in the consent order, as also to put up the effluent treatment plants
within the time prescribed in the consent order. Failure of complying with the requirement of
putting up effluent treatment plant resulted in lapse of the consent. Therefore, mere fact that
consent orders were obtained by the petitioners cannot insulate them against the requirement of
putting up the effluent treatment plants and complying with the standards of tolerance limits
prescribed.

Bombay High Court

The Goa Foundation And Another vs The Konkan Railway Corporation ... on 29 April,
1992
Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 Bom 471, 1994 (1) MhLj 21
Bench: M Pendse, G Kamat

JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim that the proposed alignment is wholly destructive of the en vironment and
the eco-system and violates the citizens" rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The
petitioners also claim that even though the ecological damage will not be felt immediately, such
damage will be gradual and will lead to the deterioration of the land quality and will affect large
number of people.
Supreme Court of India
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
Author: Y Sabharwal
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema.
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985

PETITIONER:
M.C. Mehta

RESPONDENT:
Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH:
Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema.

JUDGMENT:
Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking prompt action to
prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment, natural resources and peoples' life, health
and property, the principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be
applied. The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without
degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent
safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable
development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of
the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the
need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue.
Alaknanda Hydro Power Co.Ltd vs Anuj Joshi & Ors on 13 August, 2013
Author: ……………………………..J.
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6736 OF 2013@
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.362 OF 2012)
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. ……APPELLANT
Versus

ANUJ JOSHI & ORS. …….RESPONDENTS

WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.6746-6747 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5849-5850 of 2012)
and
T.C. (C) No.55 to 57 of 2013

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

3.A separate Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was made on the SHEP on 9.2.1985. No
adverse affect had been noticed on environment in that assessment on setting up of the Project.
On the contrary, it was felt that such a scheme would add to the richness of the scenic beauty by
creation of beautiful lakes attracting more tourists and also meet the energy requirements of the
State and could be completed within a short span of five years. Dhari Devi Temple, it was
noticed, was likely to be submerged in water, therefore was also considered while considering
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was suggested that temple would be raised and
created with a pleasing architecture suiting the surroundings.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Mukundakam Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1134-1135 OF 2002

State of Uttaranchal .. Appellant

Versus

Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others .. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

88. Environmental PIL has emerged because of the court's interpretation of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The court in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. &
Others AIR 1990 SC 2060 observed that every citizen has fundamental right to have the
enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation
of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to take recourse to Article 32 of
the Constitution.

89. This court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others AIR 1991 SC 420 observed that
under Article 21 of the Constitution people have the right of enjoyment of pollution free water
and air for full enjoyment of life.
Supreme Court of India
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996
Author: K Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghnr Ahmad
PETITIONER:
M.C. MEHTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KAMAL NATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/1996

BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHNR AHMAD

Pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a Tort committed against the community as a
whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages
(compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. "The Polluter Pays" principle has
been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs.
Union of India JT 1996 (2) 196. The Court observed, "We are of the opinion that any principle
evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this
country". The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any
other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while
carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried
on".Consequently the polluting industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm
caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and
hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying
in the affected areas". The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the
absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental of the damaged environment is part of
the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the
individual sufferers as well as the cost of the reversing the damaged ecology The precautionary
principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. It is
thus settled by this Court that one who pollutes the environmental must pay to reverse the
damage caused by his acts.
Supreme Court of India
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
Author: M H Beg
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah (Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R.
& Untwalia, N.L., Fazalali, S.M. & Kailasam, P.S.
PETITIONER:
MANEKA GANDHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/1978

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:
1978 AIR 597 1978 SCR (2) 621
1978 SCC (1) 248

It is obvious that Article 21 though couched in negative language confers fundamental right to
life and personal liberty. The question that arises for consideration on the language of Art. 21 is
as to what is the meaning and content of the words .personal liberty' as used in this Article.
Supreme Court of India
Rural Litigation And Entitlement ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 12 March, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
Author: P Bhagwati
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.
PETITIONER:
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEHRADUN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1985

BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:
1985 AIR 652 1985 SCR (3) 169
1985 SCC (2) 431 1985 SCALE (1)408

It is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in
healthy environment with minimal H disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable
hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water
and environment However, in order to mitigate their hardship, we would direct the Government
of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh that whenever any other area in the State of Uttar Pradesh
is thrown open for grant of lime stone or dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a
result of this order shall be afforded priority in grant of lease of such area and intimation that
such area is available for grant of lease shall be given to the lessees who are displaced so that
they can apply for grant of lease of such area and on the basis of such application, priority may
be given to them subject, of course, to their otherwise being found fit and eligible.
Supreme Court of India
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest ... on 18 April, 2013
Author: ……………………...……J.
Bench: Aftab Alam, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ranjan Gogoi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011

Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner

Versus
Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others .. Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

38.The necessity to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive
from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions,
histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources have
also been recognized by United Nations in the United Nations Declaration on Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. STs and other TFDs residing in the Scheduled Areas have a right to
maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise
occupied and used land.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Kerala & Anr vs Peoples Union For Civil Liberties ... on 21 July, 2009
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma
STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
v.
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, KERALA STATE
UNIT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 of 2001)
JULY 21, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J.

The reason for this categorization can be attributed to their "supposed" backwardness and not
their distinct identity from the dominant society of the country. Without taking into consideration
aforementioned aspects of the culture of the tribes, to create "awareness" and to finally "develop"
(in the narrow sense of the word) them, the tribes were forced to merge and condition themselves
along the lines of the so-called "main-stream" Indian society. "When that was challenged, the
ideologues of the aggressing society presented the theory of "integration" which in reality is the
other side of the same coin. And now has come the final blow from the armory of the India state
for the indigenous people of the country in the form of total denial of their existence in India.
"India does not have indigenous population"! Thus declared the Indian Permanent Mission in the
United Nation in Geneva (Mullick et al 7).
Supreme Court of India
Samatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 11 July, 1997
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G.B. Pattanaik
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4601-02 of 1997

PETITIONER:
SAMATHA

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/1997

BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY & S. SAGHIR AHMAD & G.B. PATTANAIK

9.Agriculture is the only source of livelihood for Scheduled Tribes, apart from collection and sale of
minor forest produce to supplement their income. Land is their most important natural and valuable
asset and imperishable endowment from which the tribals derive their sustenance, social status,
economic and social equality, permanent place of abode and work and living. It is a security and source
for economic empowerment.
Karnataka High Court
Mukesh Textile Mills (P) Ltd. vs H.R. Subramanya Sastry And Ors. on 1 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR 1987 Kant 87
Author: Venkatachalliah
Bench: M Venkatachaliah, S R Murthy

JUDGMENT Venkatachalliah, J.

6.The liability of the appellant rests at least on two principles. One is that the appellant, who had
stored large quantities of molasses in a mud tank had the duty to take reasonable care in the
matter of maintenance, in a state of good repair, of the embankments of the tank. The duty, no
doubt, is not simply to act carefully but not to cause injury carelessly. The doctrine of legal
causation, in reference both to the creation of liability and to measurement of damages is much
discussed. So, is the place of 'causation' and 'foresecability' in the tort of 'negligence'.

7. The second ground of liability is this: Appellant by storing a large quantity of molasses on the
land had put the land to a non-natural user and if a person collects on his premises things which
arc intrinsically dangerous or might become dangerous, if they escape, he has a liability, if things
so stored escape and cause damage. This is the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
in which Blackburn, J. enunciated the Rule thus :

"We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his
lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his
peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural
consequence of its escape."

On either of the two principles, a duty situation emerges and the appellant must be held liable for
the consequence of the escape of the fluid from its tank.
Donoghue v Stevenson  on 26 May 1932

Equivalent Citation: [1932] AC 562

Judgement: Lord Atkin

Lord Atkin developed this principle to determine the individuals to which duty of care was owed.
He called such individuals ‘‘neighbours’’. These neighbours could be determined by the doctrine
of reasonable foreseeability- only those individuals who could be reasonably foreseen to be
affected by a person’s actions could claim damages in case of injury due to said person’s
actions. 

Atkin said, ‘‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably
foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and
directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’’
Supreme Court of India
S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 1996
Author: K Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad.
PETITIONER:
S. JAGANNATH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996

BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD.

Judgement

"The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer
acceptable. Sustainable Development is the answer. In the International sphere "Sustainable
Development" as a concept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of
1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the World Commission on
Environment and Development in its report called "Our Common Future".
Supreme Court of India
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 1947
Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 2143 WITH 2283, 3088, 3461, 3479, 3693 IN 2143, 827, 1122,
1337, 1473 AND 1620 AND 1693 IN 1473 AND 3618

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 OF 1995

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Union Of India & ORS. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

17. Therefore, this Court recognized the need to take all precautionary measures when forests
land are sought to be diverted for non-forestry use, the creation of CAF was approved. In coming
to the aforesaid conclusions, the Court took into consideration intergenerational equity. The State
was required to undertake short term as well as long term measures for the protection of the
environment.
Supreme Court of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
Author: Kirpal
Bench: B. N. Kirpal, Dr. A. Anand
PETITIONER:
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2000

BENCH:
B. N. KIRPAL , DR. A. S. ANAND

It is when the effect of the project is known then the principle of sustainable development would
come into play which will ensure that mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the
ecological balance. Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take
place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In the present case
we are not concerned with the polluting industry which is being established. What is being
constructed is a large dam. The dam is neither a nuclear establishment nor a polluting industry.
The construction of a dam undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but it will not
be correct to presume that the construction of a large dam like the Sardar Sarovar will result in
ecological disaster. India has an experience of over 40 years in the construction of dams. The
experience does not show that construction of a large dam is not cost effective or leads to
ecological or environmental degradation.
Supreme Court of India
M.C.Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 2009
Author: S Kapadia
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985
M.C. Mehta ... Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents

7….On account of extensive mining on a disproportionate scale without taking remedial

measures has resulted irreversible changes in the environment at Aravalli. It is in the aforestated
background that any mining activity came to be banned under Order dated 29/30.10.2002. Even
as far back as 2002, the environmental problems in the Aravalli range in Gurgaon district came
to be identified. Remedial measures including pollution control guidelines and action plan for
various stakeholders came to be suggested by CMPDI. Though guidelines for mining operations
came to be issued by the State Government, the compliance was not there. Moreover, there was
no mechanism to upgrade the mining technologies to minimize the impact due to mining in the
eco-sensitive zones…

Even in para 96(6), this Court observed that mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of
sustainable development and on compliance with stringent conditions as the Aravalli Hill Range
has to be protected at any cost and in case despite stringent conditions, mining results in an
irreversible consequence on the ecology in the said area then at a later date the total stoppage of
mining activity may have to be considered.
Supreme Court of India
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc on 13 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
Author: B Jeevan Reddy
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
PETITIONER:
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/1996

BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:
1996 AIR 1446 1996 SCC (3) 212
JT 1996 (2) 196 1996 SCALE (2)44
Since the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and because the untreated
toxic sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances have
percolated deep into the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the subterranean supply of
water. The water in the wells and the streams has turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for
human consumption. It has become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land. The soil
has become polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation, the main stay of the villagers. The
resulting misery to the villagers needs no emphasis. It spread disease, death and disaster in the
village and the surrounding areas. This sudden degradation of earth and water had an echo in
Parliament too. An Hon'ble Minister said, action was being taken, but nothing meaningful was
done on the spot. The villagers then rose in virtual revolt leading to the imposition of Section 144
Cr.P.C. by the District Magistrate in the area and the closure of Silver Chemicals in January,
1989. It is averred by the respondents that both the units, Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals
have stopped manufacturing `H' acid since January, 1989 and are closed. We may assume it to be
so. Yet the consequences of their action remain - the sludge, the long-lasting damage to earth, to
underground water, to human beings, to cattle and the village economy.
Supreme Court of India
Ramji Patel & Ors vs Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak ... on 17 February, 2000
Author: S Ahmad
Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, R.C.Lahoti, S.S.Ahmad
PETITIONER:
RAMJI PATEL & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NAGRIK UPBHOKTA MARG DARSHAK MANCH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/02/2000

BENCH:
Y.K.Sabharwal, R.C.Lahoti, S.S.Ahmad

JUDGMENT:

S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

The petitioners will jointly pay the charges for such inspection and the report. A copy of this
order may be sent to the Secretary, Central Water Pollution Control Board." On 16.1.1998, a
notice was directed to be issued to the State Pollution Control Board. Thereafter, on 20.2.1998,
the following order was passed : "Notice on Central Pollution Control Board has been served but
nobody enters appearance on behalf of Central Pollution Control Board and, therefore, we do not
know as to what steps have been taken by the Central Pollution Control Board in pursuance of
the directions contained in our order dated November 7, 1997. Put up on March 27, 1998. In the
meanwhile a communication be sent to the Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board to be
personally present before this Court on March 27, 1998." The order passed by this Court on
27.3.1998 is as follows : "An affidavit of Dr. S.P. Chakrabarti, Member- Secretary, Central
Pollution Control Board, has been filed in response to the directions given by this Court in the
Order dated November 7, 1997. In the said affidavit measures have been suggested for treatment
of cowdung and the urine of the cattle and other waste water from the dairies so as to exclude the
possibility of contamination of the water flowing through the pipeline.
Supreme Court of India
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 1949
Author: ………………..………….J.
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pinaki Chandra Ghose

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2014

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007)

Animal Welfare Board of India …. Appellant

Versus
A. Nagaraja & Ors. …. Respondents

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5388 OF 2014
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5389-5390 OF 2014

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009)

57. Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living
creatures. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others (2005) 8
SCC 534, this Court held that by enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a
fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that
the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty of every
citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen “to
have compassion for living creatures”, which means concern for suffering, sympathy,
kindliness etc., which has to be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA
Act.