The Hindu : National : Don’t handle pollution cases casually: Apex court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Don’t handle pollution cases casually: Apex court

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: Those who discharge noxious effluents into streams, rivers or any other waterbody, inflicting harm on the public health, should be dealt with strictly dehors technical objections, the Supreme Court has held.

“Since the escalating pollution level of our environment affects the life and health of human beings as well as animals, courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a casual or routine manner,” said a Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam. It ordered that the trial against a company, on a complaint of pollution, continue.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “In a matter of this nature, particularly when it affects public health, if it is ultimately proved, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. The message must go to all concerned persons, whether small or big, that the courts share the parliamentary concern and legislative intent of the Act to check the escalating pollution level and restore the balance of our environment.”

The Bench said the Allahabad High Court had casually quashed a complaint on an environmental issue by exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (inherent powers).

“While exercising inherent powers either on civil or criminal jurisdiction, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. The inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly and with caution. It should be exercised to do real and substantial justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse,” the Bench said.

“When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. To put it clear, it is the function of the trial judge to do so. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.”

In the instant case, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board filed a complaint against Modi Carpets Ltd., Rae Bareli, and 12 others under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act for discharging effluents into the Sai river. On a petition from the company, the High Court quashed the complaint. The appeal by the board is directed against this judgment.

Setting aside the verdict, the Bench directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National