Public Hygiene Is A Collective Duty Of Citizens, Not Solely Municipal Corporation’s Responsibility: Bombay High Court
The Court appreciated the steps reported by the BMC, including enforcement of solid waste bye-laws, CCTV monitoring at garbage-prone points, anti-littering drives, and citizen awareness initiatives.
The Bombay High Court observed that maintaining public hygiene is a collective duty of citizens, not the sole responsibility of the municipal corporation, while considering measures taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to address garbage dumping, littering, and solid waste management concerns in Mumbai.
The Court was hearing a writ petition with interim applications concerning public hygiene and solid waste management in Mumbai, after it had earlier issued directions to the Municipal Commissioner and municipal machinery to keep streets, by-lanes, pavements, marketplaces, nalas, water bodies and public utility spaces free from garbage and plastic waste.
A Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale observed: “Considering the present scenario and the herculean efforts being taken by the Municipal Commissioner along with the municipal machinery, it is certainly not the sole responsibility and obligation of the municipal corporation to achieve such goals, as the citizens at large, are equal stakeholders in achieving ideals of a clean and hygienic city. Thus, efforts on war-footing are required to be adopted by all the stakeholders. We may emphasize that improper waste disposal in public places directly compromises community health and environment quality. Also it adversely affects the local aesthetics. The reckless dumping of trash and garbage of all kinds giving a go by to the prescribed machinery for disposal of garbage creates breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rodents and stray animals equally increasing transmission of diseases like dengue, malaria, leptospirosis, cholera etc. It is in these circumstances, the accountability of community at all levels, becomes all the more important. Maintaining public hygiene is a collective duty of “we the citizens” by aiding the municipal machinery.”
Advocate Abhijeet P. Rane appeared for the petitioners; Advocate Anil D. Yadav appeared for the Union of India; Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan appeared for the State; Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare appeared for the BMC.
Background
In an earlier order, the Court had flagged two concerns: the duty of residents to keep the city clean by refraining from dirtying public spaces, and the need to activate municipal and legal machinery against continued dumping of garbage on streets, pavements and other public places.
The Court had directed the Municipal Commissioner to ensure garbage-free streets, by-lanes, pavements and public utility spaces in every ward. It had also directed systematic storage and collection of garbage, strict vigil against dumping of garbage and plastic waste, deployment of technology such as CCTV, cleanliness in marketplaces, awareness against dumping in sea, nalas and water bodies, barriers at points where nala drains meet the sea, closure of open nalas, and public recognition of clean wards.
Pursuant to those directions, the BMC filed an affidavit reporting compliance. The affidavit referred to an action plan issued by the Municipal Commissioner, enforcement of BMC’s Solid Waste Management Bye-Laws, 2025, anti-littering drives, ward-wise fines, NGO-assisted waste collection in notified slums, CCTV cameras at garbage vulnerable points, the MyBMC Marg grievance redressal application, Mumbai Clean League 2026, emails to elected municipal corporators, and measures such as net barriers, floating booms and plastic waste interceptor technology.
The Court also took on record an order constituting a special cell under the chairmanship of the District Collector, Mumbai Suburban, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order in Bhopal Municipal Corporation v. Dr Subhash C. Pandey & Ors. (2026), and a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under Section 23 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Court’s Observations
The Court recalled that its earlier order had raised questions of public hygiene, health and civic accountability in Mumbai.
The Bench observed: “Issues of seminal importance on public hygiene and health are flagged in our order dated 15th July 2026. We indicated two major concerns, first, the duty of residents to keep the city clean by refraining from dirtying public places, such as throwing garbage on roads, pavements and streets and second, if, despite warnings, citizens fail to relent and continue to trash public streets, pavements, or other public places, the municipal and legal machinery to prevent such abuse of public property needs to be set in motion.”
The Court noted that accountability of residents, ward officers and the municipal machinery was required to be activated by resorting to strict action.
After considering the affidavit filed by the Corporation, the Court appreciated the steps taken by the Municipal Commissioner and the officers concerned.
The Court observed: “At this stage, we appreciate the efforts of the Corporation, particularly the proactive stand taken by the Municipal Commissioner and the Officers involved, in taking quick steps to curb the menace of garbage dumping on the streets, as well as the allied issues involved in the present matter.”
The Bench added: “In the absence of such pragmatic and positive actions on the part of the municipal commissioner, we feel that a city like Mumbai which is of an international repute could never be elevated to such reputation it wields.”
The Court also took on record an environmental hourly monitoring report concerning ICWM Kanjur. When the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the PM10 parameter was beyond the permissible AQI limit notified by the Government, the Court permitted the BMC’s counsel to seek clarification and revert on the next date.
The Court further recorded that the BMC had presented a solid waste management model for Ward A and that it was stated that the model would be replicated in other wards.
The petitioner’s counsel placed before the Court a letter addressed to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, along with a photograph showing drainage clogged with plastic bottles and other waste.
The Court observed: “In our opinion, this is only the tip of the iceberg, we do not know how many such instances are unnoticed in the different wards.”
The Bench directed the ward officers of the MCGM to look into such instances and immediately address complaints received. It also directed the MPCB to address the AQI data placed by the BMC and contradicted by the petitioner’s counsel, and to confirm whether the same was within the limit safely permissible for humans on the adjourned date.
The Court linked the issue of city cleanliness to constitutional goals relating to public health, environmental protection and fundamental duties.
The Bench observed: “The constitutional vision as enshrined in the directive principles of State policy of maintaining standard of living and improvement of public health, protection and improvement of environment are the goals to be achieved.”
It further noted: “The fundamental duties as enshrined in Article 51A (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement also become relevant in the present context.”
The Court said that the steps taken by the Municipal Commissioner would assist in achieving the objectives before the Court.
The Bench observed: “In the present circumstances, the aforesaid steps being taken by the Municipal Commissioner are certainly path-breaking and would certainly go a long way in achieving the desired objectives on this front.”
It added that “Clean Mumbai, Green Mumbai” would not remain merely a paper slogan if brought into reality through community will and municipal action.
Conclusion
The High Court took the BMC’s affidavit, the District Collector’s order constituting a special cell, the environmental monitoring report and the Ward A solid waste management model on record. It directed MCGM ward officers to immediately address complaints regarding clogged drainage and similar instances, and directed the MPCB to address the AQI data issue on the next date. The proceedings were listed for further consideration on September 10, 2026.
Cause Title: Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate Abhijeet P. Rane
Respondents: Advocate Anil D. Yadav, Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan, Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare with Advocates Rohan Mirpury and Pushpa Yadav, instructed by Advocate Komal Punjabi, Advocate Jaya Bagwe, Advocate Nawaz Dordi, instructed by Advocate Tejas Bhide, Advocate Saket Mone with Advocates Subit Chakraborty, Shrey Shah and Mitali Dhoble, instructed by Vidhi Partners, Advocate Radha H. Bhandari, instructed by M.V. Kini & Co.