Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
Supreme Court of India · 9 January 1991 · 2 judges · 1991 AIR 420; 1991 SCR (1) 5; 1991 SCC (1) 598
The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to pollution free water and air, but a petition under Article 32 filed to pursue a personal grudge in the garb of public interest litigation was dismissed with costs.
Facts
Subhash Kumar petitioned under Article 32, as public interest litigation, alleging that Tata Iron & Steel Co. was discharging slurry from its washeries at West Bokaro Collieries into the Bokaro river, making the water unfit for drinking and irrigation, and that the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board had failed to act under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. As interim relief he sought permission to collect the slurry. The Pollution Board stated that settling tanks had been built, the effluent was monitored and there was no discharge into the river except negligible seepage. The company stated that the petitioner, a coal trader, had bought slurry from it for years, had been refused more, faced criminal cases for removing its slurry, and had brought several proceedings against it.
Questions before the Court
- Does the right to life under Article 21 include the right to pollution free water and air, enforceable under Article 32?
- Was the petition a genuine public interest litigation, or one filed in the petitioner's personal interest?
What the Court held
- The right to live under Article 21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air. A citizen may invoke Article 32 to remove pollution of water or air that impairs the quality of life, and such a petition is maintainable by affected persons or even a group of social workers or journalists.
- Public interest litigation must be brought by a person genuinely interested in protecting society. It cannot be used to satisfy a personal grudge or enmity, and the Court has a duty to discourage such petitions as an abuse of its process.
- On the pleadings, prima facie there was no good reason to accept that the river was being polluted; the State Pollution Control Board had taken effective steps to check pollution.
- The prayer for interim relief to collect the slurry showed the petition was filed for the petitioner's business interest and grudge against the company. It was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.
Why it matters
The judgment states that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution free water and air, and that Article 32 can be used to remove pollution. It also sets the limit on public interest litigation: the Court will not allow its extraordinary jurisdiction to be used for personal matters, and dismisses such petitions with costs.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.”
“Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity.”
“The prayer for the interim relief made by the petitioner clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the slurry and transporting the same for the purposes of his business.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
- Case
- Writ Petition (C) No. 381 of 1998
- Decided
- 9 January 1991
- Bench
- K.N. Singh, N.D. Ojha
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N. Singh, J., giving reasons for the order of dismissal made on 13.12.1990.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.