Much Water Has Flown During Pendency In Last 5 Years: Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Case On Polluted Rivers

The Supreme Court closed its suo motu proceedings regarding the remediation of polluted rivers, directing that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) resume its role as the primary monitoring body.

The Bench noted that the original case, which began in 2021 due to rising pollution levels in the Yamuna, had inadvertently created a "multiplicity of proceedings" that hindered actual progress on the ground.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Much water has flown during the pendency of these proceedings for the last five years. Water is polluted. In the absence of any latest report, we are not sure of the improved condition of the Yamuna water or other ponds, lakes, etc. At the same time, the responsibility of the Tribunal does not come to an end merely by passing or issuing directions. At the same time, the Commission also does not get absolved from its responsibility only with the issuance of written directions. All that we wish to observe is that this has to be an ongoing process and if the statutory authorities from the concerned governments or, for that matter, even private entities find or create an impediment in giving effect to the provisions of the environmental law or the directions issued by the Tribunal, it is imperative upon the Tribunal to monitor the subject and ensure that the necessary directions are issued from time to time and status reports are obtained in furtherance of the compliance." 

The Court ordered, "These suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Court passed by a 2-judge bench in—Suo Motu Petition No. 1 of 2021—in Delhi Jal Board v. State of Haryana and others. So, while the original matter dealt with the increased level of pollution in the Yamuna River, it was deemed appropriate by the Court to take suo motu cognizance with regard to the issue of contamination of rivers by sewage effluents. The Court felt that, considering the gravity caused by the contamination of the River Yamuna, that should be the first issue to be dealt with, for which notices were issued to the states of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, and UP.

The Court emphasized that the right to live in a clean environment and hygienic conditions is a fundamental aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Surya Kant pointed out that under the existing legislative scheme, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) have a statutory obligation to ensure that no untreated sewage is discharged into rivers. The Court noted that despite these legal frameworks, much time had passed since the case began in 2021 without a clear update on whether the water quality of the Yamuna or other rivers had actually improved.

"In addition, the Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the Central Pollution Control Board were also included as party-Respondents. There is no gainsaying that the right to live with hygienic conditions containing human dignity, from which a clean environment is deeply embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution. So, this Court has, in a catena of decisions, held that what will be the basic need for the survival of a human being and, hence, the right to life and human rights, the spirit of Article 21 can be meaningfully solved only by providing a source of water where there is none. It is underlining these principles that the effect of water pollution on human health, as a serious adverse factor, drew the attention of this Court when suo motu proceedings were initiated", it said.

Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Central and State Pollution Control Boards are legally bound to ensure that no sewage or industrial waste is dumped into rivers, ponds, or lakes unless it is fully treated. The Court noted that the "very purpose" of creating specialized environmental tribunals like the NGT was to have experts monitor these technical compliance issues.

The Bench ordered, "This Court also took notice of the fact that under the legislative scheme, namely the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards were statutorily obligated to take all necessary remedial measures for ensuring that sewage effluent of cities is not discharged into rivers unless it has been completely treated. In rivers, ponds, and lakes, unless it is completely treated and will not deteriorate the quality of water. Therefore, the necessity of the establishment of common effluent treatment plants and sewage treatment plants was also being recognized and thereafter, the Central Pollution Control Board was directed as follows..."

The Bench also remarked that it was a mistake for the Tribunal to stop its work entirely, suggesting that a sense of "hurry" to close the case had superseded the need for long-term monitoring.

The Court reiterated that the right to live in hygienic conditions and a clean environment is a core part of Article 21 (The Right to Life). It emphasized that this right is meaningless without access to clean water.

The Supreme Court ruled that the NGT must reopen these proceedings and take a more active, ongoing role. The Court clarified that the responsibility of the NGT does not end simply by issuing directions; it must ensure those directions are implemented by state governments, the central government, and private bodies through regular status reports. 

The Court observed, "Having said that, we are equally cognizant of the fact that multiple and parallel proceedings create uncertainty, overlapping, and confusion with respect to the nature and uniformity of the directions issued. It seems to us that instead of issuing suo motu proceedings, the Court ought to have directed the Tribunal to continue to monitor the previous directions until the desirable result is achieved. In any case, the Tribunal is not the end of the street. Statutory appeals or writ petitions challenging the orders of the Tribunal or other authorities are always subject to judicial review by this Court...So, in light of the above, we are satisfied that it is high time that these suo motu proceedings should be closed and the proceedings which were pending before the Tribunal, and which have been seemingly closed, be allowed to be reopened. "

"Therefore, we direct the Central Pollution Control Board, or any other agency of the states, as well as the Union of India, to submit their respective compliance and status reports before the NGT Principal Bench. Similarly, the original applicants, the petitioners before this Court, or the intervenors before this Court shall be at liberty to assist the Tribunal in the aforementioned matter. Regarding the orders passed by this Court from time to time, the NGT shall be at liberty to suitably modify the directions issued by this Court to ensure conformity...The Tribunal shall be free to issue a fresh set of directions as may be required after considering the latest status report of the prevailing conditions. With that liberty, the directions issued by the NGT shall be closed", the Court directed.

Background

A writ petition was filed by the Delhi Jal Board, which related to increased ammonia levels in the Yamuna due to the discharge of pollutants, and also highlighted an issue of great significance and consequence not only for the general public but all living beings dependent upon open surface water.

In January 2021, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance on the issue of "remediation of polluted rivers". While passing the said order, the Court had said, "Open surface water resources, including rivers, are lifeline of human civilization. In olden days, almost all the human settlements were at the bank of some river as it provided for an array of utilities such as potable water, irrigation, food, livelihood, transportation, etc. Every civilization including ours, has shown great amount of gratitude to these life creating resources...Rapid population growth, modern living patterns, wide spheres of human activities and industrialization have resulted in greater demand for fresh water. At the same time, pollution of water resources is increasing steadily. Deterioration of quality of fresh water has a direct correlation with the quality of public health. It is an acknowledged fact that pollution of water supplies by sewage effluents has been and still is a major cause of variety of diseases and discomforts."

The Court also had observed that the effect of water pollution on human health is not the only adverse factor. Water pollution can seriously harm the aquatic life in water bodies. It has become necessary to compare the costs of prevention and control of water pollution against its effects on human health, including treatment, indirect economic costs and damage to flora and fauna, it added.

The Court had directed the CPCB to submit a report identifying municipalities along the river Yamuna, which have not installed total treatment plants for sewage as per the requirement or have gaps in ensuring that the sewage is not discharged untreated into the river. CPCB was also ordered that it may also highlight any other source of prominent contamination within the limits of Municipalities. 

"The mandate of law is clear as far as setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants and stoppage of sewage effluents in surface water are concerned, but it is often found as highlighted by this petition that either the sewage is not treated through a plant before being discharged or the treatment plants are not functional or incapacitated...We find that in addition to the issue raised by present petition, it will be appropriate to take suo moto cognizance with regard to the issue of contamination of rivers by sewage effluents and ensure that the mandate is implemented by municipalities as far as discharge of sewage into rivers is concerned", the Court ordered.

Cause Title: In Re Remediation of Polluted Rivers [Suo Motu Writ No. 1/2021]