Mc
mehta vs kamal nath
-Thomas
Abstract
MC
Mehta V Kamal Nath, this case is one of the most important cases in environmental
law in India It established that Doctrine of Public Trust is an essential
component of the Indian legal framework. This case put a limelight on the
rampant corruption prevalent in India. A high-ranking government official
committing a breach in the very ministry he is heading is a gross atrocity.
This case helped show how journalism and judiciary are the bastions of a
healthy democracy. We will look at the facts, context, issues raised, arguments
advanced and judgement of the case at hand.
Introduction
The
Supreme Court of India was elucidated by an Indian Express news report
about some nefarious activities taking place in Kulu- Manali, Himachal Pradesh
which was having severe consequence on the Environment. The main party to these
activities was a reputed Resort chain, “ Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. AN important
fact to keep in mind is that incumbent environment minister of the time, Mr.
Kamal Nath had established and direct holdings in the said company. These
counsel for Mr Kamal Nath made no disputes to this fact and it can help infer
many judgements. The motel in question was built on the bank of the River Beas
on land which was leased by the government in 1981. There was further
encroachment of land done by spa motels later leased out to the motel group. The
establishment was in close proximity to the Beas River. This is a young,
dynamic river and acts as a lifeline for many stakeholders. Span, with the help
of bulldozers and earth movers charged the course of the Beas for their
personal gain. The judgement had been given on December 13, 1996 holding Span
liable. Following which, a fresh suit arose and Span was shown a notice to pay
exemplary damages for not abiding by acts of the main judgement.[1]
Indian context
This
case is one of the most vital judgements in Environmental law India . “Kamal
Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep his dreams afloat”.[2] This headline published in
the Indian Express on February 25, 1996 and had lasting repercussions on the
legal and government framework of India. This attention-grabbing headline was
noticed by the Supreme Court and they took Suo Moto cognisance to see what the
matter was about. The Span Resorts was a prestigious and well-established
Hospitality chain at the time. A majority shareholder, owner and patron of the
chain was the eminent leader Kamal Nath. Kamal Nath has had a history of
controversy. The location of this dispute was the Span Resort at the Kulu
Manali valley in Himachal Pradesh. Due to the selfish actions of the
respondent, the public’s legal right was infringed. The judgement passed by the
Supreme Court acts as a strong precedent for time to come.[3]
Facts in brief
· The Indian Express published an article reporting
that a private company, Span Motels Private Ltd. (‘the Motel Company’), owner
of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club.
· Kamal Nath who was the Minister of Environment
and Forests had direct links with this company.
· The company encroached upon 27.12 big has of land
which also included forest land. The land was regularized and subsequently
leased out to the company on 11th April 19
· This encroachment had an impact on the course of
river Beas. For more than 5 months the Span Resorts management moved bulldozers
and earth movers to turn the course of the river for the second time.
· In September, 1993, these activities by the
company caused floods in the river and a property worth Rs. 105 Crores was
destroyed.
Summary of Leading cases with Important Issues
Repute newspaper at the time, Indian Express published
a revealing expose that Span Motels Private Limited which was owned by the then
Minister of environment and Forests, Kama Nath, had built a span club which
encroached 27.12 acres of forest land. The encroachment and approval of the
forest land was done during the tenure of Kama Nath. A consequence of the
encroachment was the swelling of the Beas River which changed its course. The
climatic consequence of this was that it caused soil erosion which resulted in
landslides have a devastating result. The Beas river is a young and dynamic
river. Permission for the construction of the motel was given by concerned
government authorities
The
Plethora of facts of the above case can be summarised into the main contentions
that were a violation of principles of natural justice
·
Was it fair to induct Mr. Kamal Nath
(Minister of environment and Forests) as a respondent in the present suit?
·
Was the construction activity carried
out by Span legitimate and valid?
The
Respondents contended the following to the issues brought to light
They
did not dispute the fact that Mr Kamal Nath had ownership of the motel chain.
It was the understanding of the respondents that the construction activity was
carried out on Land which the motel company was in sole possession of and had
legitimate possession over it. This was the very nature of a lease- hold
relationship
The
concerned authority of the given place ( Divisional Forest Officer) had duly
consented and given permission for the respective construction activities to
take place provided there was no cost incurred on the side of the State for the
respective work
An
important question that arises is, how was the forest land encroached and
regularised in broad daylight?
According
to the Indian Express expose Mr Kamal Nath, Minister of Environment and Forests
had an ambition to possess a house on the banks of the beautiful river Beas. It
was well established in the court proceedings that he had almost full ownership
of the motel chain. The company took possession over the motel in 1981 and a
new lease agreement was signed on the following date. This gives us a clear
picture to the level of corruption that prevailed in India. If it was not for
the press and the judiciary that acts as bastions of Justice, many gross
atrocities like this would be rampant in our country.[4]
Doctrine of Public Trust
Legal
doctrine are tenets and principles which are used as standard to help dispense
justice. In the said case, “Doctrine of Public Trust” . This is a doctrine that
dates back to the advent of governments. It stated that certain elements of the
biosphere such as forests, rivers, beaches and the atmosphere were held by
government in trusteeship for free and uninterrupted use of the public without
any hinderance to them. In English law, the sovereign could not grant the
rights to a property under the ambit of this doctrine as it would affect the
rights of the public. For example a waterbodies primary purpose to the public
is navigation and fishing. In light of the facts stated, this not only affected
enjoyment of these rights but changed the course of the river causing
tremendous damage to the environment. A very famous case of similar lines would
be the Lak Mono Case decided upon by the Supreme Court of California
Final judgement
Public
trust doctrine can be equated to law of the land. The Court quashed the lease- deed by which
forested land was leased to the motel company and held that the construction
activity carried out by the Motel Company was not justified
The Motel was ordered
to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and
ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered
to construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the
building of the motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of the
river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from
discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution
Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check. This case help established the Doctrine of Public Trust as essential to
law of the land. In the following cases it was cemented further Maharaj Singh v Indian Oil Corporation[5]
& M. I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu[6]
[1] MC
Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1997)1 SCC 388
[2] ibid
[3]
Mina Anand, Water: That precious public resource, The Telegraph, (
May 2nd , 2020, 23:00), https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/water-that-precious-public-resource/cid/1697386
[4]
Lavu Sri Krishna, Accounting for every drop of water, The New Indian Express, ( May
2nd , 2020, 23:00), https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2019/nov/16/accounting-for-every-drop-of-water-2062371.html
[5]
Maharaj Singh Vs IndianOil Coroporatio ( 1999) AIR 81
[6]
M.I Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu ( 1999) AIR SC 2468.
Comments
Post a Comment