Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union Of India: Landmark Judgment on Air Pollution Control

Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union Of India: Landmark Judgment on Air Pollution Control

Introduction

The case of Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union Of India adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on November 10, 2016, marks a pivotal moment in India's environmental jurisprudence. This case emerged against the backdrop of alarming air quality levels in Delhi and its surrounding regions, which had reached unprecedented heights, posing severe threats to public health across all demographics.

The primary parties involved include the petitioner, Vardhaman Kaushik, representing concerned citizens and environmental factions, and the respondent, the Union of India, encompassing various state governments and environmental authorities responsible for air quality management. The key issues at stake revolved around the state’s failure to enforce existing environmental laws and implement Supreme Court directives effectively, leading to continued environmental degradation.

Summary of the Judgment

The NGT, upon evaluating extensive data from the Central Pollution Control Board and State Boards, found that particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) levels in Delhi and neighboring states had grossly exceeded national standards. The judgment underscored seven major contributors to air pollution, including construction activities, waste burning, agricultural residue burning, vehicular emissions, road dust, industrial emissions, and activities related to stone crushers.

The Tribunal highlighted the failure of state authorities to implement previous orders and Supreme Court directives adequately. It emphasized the necessity of enforcing strict measures to curb pollution, establishing monitoring committees, and ensuring accountability through disciplinary actions against non-compliant officials. The judgment also outlined comprehensive directives for both centralized and state-level committees to oversee the enforcement of pollution control measures.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several prior orders and cases, notably:

  • Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority: This case provided a framework for addressing agricultural residue burning by mandating preventive and incentive-based measures for farmers.
  • Various NGT orders dated between 2014 and 2015: These orders addressed different sources of pollution but notably omitted comprehensive measures against agricultural residue burning prior to this judgment.

These precedents collectively informed the Tribunal’s approach, emphasizing a multi-faceted strategy combining enforcement, incentives, and public accountability to effectively tackle air pollution.

Impact

This landmark judgment is poised to have significant ramifications on future legal proceedings and environmental policies in India:

  • Strengthened Enforcement Mechanisms: Establishment of centralized and state-level monitoring committees ensures sustained oversight and accountability.
  • Policy Reformation: Mandates specific actions against various pollution sources, compelling industries and municipalities to adopt cleaner practices.
  • Public Health Protection: Enhances legal protections for citizens' right to a healthy environment, potentially leading to more rigorous health safeguards.
  • Precedent for Environmental Litigation: Serves as a robust precedent for future environmental litigations, empowering citizens and advocacy groups to seek judicial intervention in environmental matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5): These are tiny particles suspended in the air. PM10 refers to particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less, and PM2.5 refers to those with 2.5 micrometers or less. High concentrations can penetrate deep into the lungs, causing respiratory and cardiovascular issues.

Ambient Air Quality Index (AQI): A measure used to indicate the quality of outdoor air based on the concentrations of pollutants like PM10, PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone. Higher AQI values represent poorer air quality and greater health risks.

Inter-Generational Equity: A principle ensuring that future generations inherit a healthy and sustainable environment, emphasizing the responsibility of the current generation to preserve environmental quality.

Environmental Emergency: A state declared when pollution levels reach critical thresholds, necessitating immediate and robust interventions to prevent further environmental and public health deterioration.

Conclusion

The Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union Of India judgment stands as a monumental directive in the fight against air pollution in India. By meticulously outlining the causes, enforcing stringent measures, and establishing robust oversight mechanisms, the NGT has fortified the legal framework protecting the environment and public health. The judgment not only mandates immediate actions to address severe pollution levels but also instills a long-term vision for sustainable environmental governance.

The emphasis on inter-generational equity and the recognition of a clean environment as a fundamental right underscore the judiciary's proactive stance in environmental protection. As a result, this judgment is expected to catalyze significant policy reforms, enhance enforcement rigor, and foster a culture of accountability among state and central authorities, ultimately paving the way for cleaner air and a healthier populace in India.

Case Details

Year: 2016
Court: National Green Tribunal

Judge(s)

Swatanter KumarChairpersonJawad Rahim, Judicial MemberRaghuvendra S. Rathore, Judicial MemberRanjan Chatterjee, Expert Member

Advocates

Mr. Sanjeev Ralli with Mr. Trinayan Sonowal, Advs. (Chandni Chowk Vyapar Mandal)Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay and Mr. Salik Shafiq, Advs.Ms. Diya Kapur, Adv. And Petitioner in Person and Mr. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Advs.Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Advs. For MoEF & CCMr. Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Kush Sharma, Mr. Anurag Tripathi and Mr. Anirudh, Advs. for DDAMr. Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Siju Thomas, Advs. Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Adv.Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Charajeet Singh, Advs., Delhi Police and Transport Deptt.Mr. Rajul Shrivastava, with Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advs. MPPCBMr. Anurag Kumar, Adv. For Ms. Sakshi Popli, Adv. NDMCMr. Guntur Prabhakar and Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advs. for State of A.PMr. Raman Yadav, Adv. for Ghaziabad Dev. Authority Mr. Atul Jha Adv. for State of ChattisgarhMr. Devraj Ashok, Adv. for State of KarnatakaMr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mr. Panshul Chandrachud and Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advs.Mr. Balendu Shekhar and Mr. Vivek Jaiswal, Advs. for EDMCMr. Ram Sajivan Maurya, SMD and Minining Officer and Mr. Ajit Kumar Pandey District GondaMr. Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Ms. Somya Rathore and Ms. Smidha Mehra, Advs. for MoRTH and Ministry of Heavy Industries, MoEFMr. Edward Balho, Ms. Elix Gangmel and Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Advs. for State of NagalandMr. Rudreshwar Singh and Mr. Gautam Singh, Advs.Ms. Puja Kalra, Adv. for NDMC, SDMCMs. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for National Highways Authority of IndiaMr. Mahesh Dutt Tripathi, Adv. for Delhi cantonment BoardMr. Anil Soni, AAG and Mr. Naginder Beniwal, Advs. for State of PunjabMr. Ashish Negi, Adv. for Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advs. for State of PunjabMr. Suryanarayan Singh, Addl. AAGMr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Ms. Guneet Khehar, Advs. for GNCTD,Mr. Narender Pal Singh with Dr. M.P George and Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, DPCCMs. Alpana Poddar, Adv. and Mr. Bhupinder Kr. LA., Central Pollution Control BoardMr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.for MPCBMr. Vinay P. Singh, Adv. for Mercedese Benz.Mr. Amit Agarwal and Ms. Asha Basu, Adv. for West Bengal Pollution Control BoardMs. Puja Singh, Adv. for Hemantika Wahi, Adv. for State of Gujarat & GSPCBMr. Hemant Jain, Ms. Usha Jain and Mr. K. Sunil, and Mr. Aviral Mittal, Advs.Mr. Sumit Kishore, Adv. for PNGRBMr. P. Venkat Reddy and Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyani, Advs. for State of TelenganaMr. Ravindra Kr. Kashyap and Mr. Gudipti G. Kashyap, Advs. for NOIDA and Greater NOIDAMr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for JSPCBMr. Gaurav Dubey, Adv. for K2 InternationalMs. Priyanka Sinha Advs for State of JharkhandMr. Anuj Sarma, Adv. For State of GoaMr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs.Mr. Sandeep Narain and Ms. Natasha Sarawat and Ms. Khushboo Bari and Mr. Bipin Das, Advs. for Tata Motors Ltd. M.A No. 172 of 2016Mr. Gopal Singh and Ms. Varsha Poddar, Advs.Mr. Anil Grover AAG and Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Adv. for State of Haryana, HSPCB, MCF, MCG, HUDAMr. Raj Kumar, Adv.Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. and Mr. Dinesh Jindel, LO, DPCCMr. Priyanaka Swami, Adv. for Nagar Nigam GhaziabadMr. Sarurabh Rajpal, and Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Advs. For Rajasthan Pollution Control Board with Secretary Environment, Rajasthan Mr. R.K GroverMr. Taruna A. Prasad, adv. for MoEFMr. R. Rakesh Sharma and Mr. M. Marutha Samy, Advs. for State of Tamil Nadu and TNPCBMr. V.K Shukla, Adv. from State of M.PMr. Hemant Jain with Ms. Usha Jain and Mr. K. Sunil and Mr. Amiral Mittal, Advs.Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Priyanka Samy, Advs. In MA 358/2016 and 545/2016Mr. Yatendra Sharma and Mr. Satyarat Sharma, adv. In M.A No. 979/2016Ms. Rasna Kaukat, adv. for Manushi SangathanMr. Anoop Verma, Mr. Anil Soni, AAG with Mr. Naginder Benipal, Adv. in M.A Nos. 983 & 984Ms. Arushi Khandelwal, Adv. in M.A No. 976/16Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv. For State of Uttar PradeshMr. Sunil K. Jain AOR and Mr. Punya Garg, adv. in M.A No. 949/16Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, and Mr. Arjun Syal, Advs. in M.A 1078/1097/1080/1091/1092, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138/2016,Mr. Yatender Sharma and Satyajeet 979/16Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Avneesh Arputham and Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Advs. for State of SikkimMr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv. for State of OdishaMr. Vijay K. Sondhi and Ms. Cauveri Birbal Ms. Divya Sharma Ms. Avantika, Mr. Aranyak Pathak and Ms. Nayamat Sistani, Advs.Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meiti and Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Advs. for State of ManipurMr. Om Prakash, Adv. Ministry of RailwaysMs. Neha Makhija, Adv. for Mr. Gaurav Dubey, Adv. In MA Nos. 1082 & 1083Mr. Pranav A. Kapur, Mr. Siju Thomas and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. in MA 783/2016Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Adv.Mr. A.R Takkar, Mr. Ankur Sharma and Ms. Shriya Takkar, Advs.Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar and Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Advs.Mr. Nishe Raj en Shonker and Mr. Gajendra Khichi, Advs.Mr. Manoj Mittal and Mr. Tahay Ayde, Advs.Mr. Pragyan Sharma and Ms. Ananditi Kumar, Advs. For State of MizoramMr. Sarthak Chaturvedi and Mr. Rohit Pandey, Advs. For Andaman & Nicobar AdministrationMr. Raman Yadav, Adv. for Ghaziabad Dev. AuthorityMr. Anand S. Pathak, Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra and Ms. Hima Lawrence, Adv.

Comments