Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others

Share & spread the love

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others illustrates that the petitioner filed the PIL due to personal grievances rather than genuine public interest. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of environmental jurisprudence over the years has served the public by ensuring a right to life under Article 21, which includes a pollution-free environment.

The Constitution of India provides a mechanism to uphold individual rights while preventing misuse of the legal process for personal gain. In Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others, the Court did not delve into greater detail, recognising that the petition was filed out of self-interest rather than public concern.

Facts of Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others

Subhash Kumar, the petitioner, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking the prevention of pollution in the Bokaro River caused by the discharge of slurry from the plants of Tata Iron & Steel Co. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to maintain the wholesomeness of the water, thereby violating Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which prohibits the discharge of poisonous or polluting matter into water bodies.

The State Pollution Control Board is responsible for implementing the functions provided in Section 17 of the said Act, which includes inspecting trade effluents and treatment plants for sewage and reviewing data and specifications for water treatment. Section 24 of the Act prohibits any person from knowingly causing or authorising the discharge of any poisonous or polluting matter into a river.

The petitioner, Subhash Kumar, asserted that Tata Iron and Steel Co. operated mining plants in Jamshedpur, known as West Bokaro Collieries, which discharged waste in the form of slurry. This slurry allegedly settled on the bed of the Bokaro River and affected the land, including plot no. 170, which belonged to the petitioner. The slurry absorbed into the agricultural land, leaving a fine film of carboniferous material, thus polluting the water used for irrigation and drinking purposes. Despite several complaints, the State Pollution Control Board failed to take necessary actions against the company. The petitioner claimed that the State of Bihar was granting leases for the collection of slurry on the payment of royalty to various persons.

The petitioner sought relief by requesting the court to direct the respondents to take immediate actions to prevent the pollution of the Bokaro River and to take further actions under the provisions of the Act against Tata Iron & Steel Co. However, the respondents argued that the petitioner filed the PIL to serve his personal interests rather than to protect the public interest. They asserted that the petitioner had been purchasing slurry from the company for several years and filed the PIL only after the company refused to supply him further.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others were:

  1. Whether the PIL was filed in public interest or for personal reasons.
  2. Whether the Bokaro River was indeed polluted by the discharge of slurry from the defendant’s mining plant.

Arguments of the Plaintiff

Subhash Kumar argued in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar that the Bokaro River was being polluted by the discharge of waste in the form of slurry from the washers of Tata Iron & Steel Co. He claimed that the polluted water was neither fit for drinking nor for irrigation and posed significant health risks to the local population. The petitioner alleged that despite continuous requests, no actions were taken by the State of Bihar, which was instead granting leases for slurry collection. He sought relief by directing the respondents, including the State of Bihar and Bihar Pollution Control Board, to take immediate measures to prevent further pollution.

Arguments of the Defendants

The respondents argued in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar that Tata Iron & Steel Co. had obtained sanction from the State Pollution Control Board for discharging effluents under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. They asserted that the effluents discharged did not pollute the Bokaro River. The respondents further contended that steps had been taken to prevent pollution, including the construction of four ponds to store the effluents. They argued that no slurry discharge was found in the river and that the slurry had high market value and was thus carefully managed to prevent wastage.

Related Provisions

  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights, bypassing lower courts.
  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This Act aims to prevent and control water pollution and maintain the wholesomeness of water. It grants powers to central and state boards to control pollution.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue directions, orders or  writs to enforce fundamental rights and for other purposes.

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others Judgement

The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar found that the State Pollution Control Board had taken effective steps to prevent the discharge of waste from the factories into the Bokaro River. The court in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar dismissed the petition, stating that a person invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 must do so to vindicate the fundamental rights of affected persons, not for personal grievances. The court emphasised its duty to discourage petitions filed under the guise of public interest litigation but motivated by personal interests.

The bench found that the petitioner, being an influential businessman, had tried to pressure the respondents into supplying more slurry and filed the PIL out of personal animosity when his demands were not met. Several proceedings had been initiated by the petitioner at lower courts, all aimed at obtaining slurry collection rights.

Considering all facts, the Court in Subhash Kumar versus State of Bihar dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay ₹5,000 to the respondents.

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar & Others Case Summary

In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar & Others (AIR 1991 SC 420), the Supreme Court of India addressed the right to a clean environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Subhash Kumar filed a writ petition alleging that the discharge of slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. into the Bokaro River was polluting the water, affecting his livelihood and the health of residents.

The court in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. However, the petition was dismissed due to a lack of evidence directly linking the pollution to the respondents, emphasising the need for concrete proof in environmental claims.


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad