- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M.C Mehta v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court of India has been supervising multiple environment-related matters concerning the Taj Trapezium for approximately four years. In the present order, the Court:
- Reviewed affidavits filed pursuant to its earlier order dated 20-02-1996 by Shri Kamal Nath and members of a Special Cell, found them unsatisfactory, and contemplated contempt proceedings.
- Took note of escalating tourist numbers to the Taj Mahal (over 20 lakh visitors annually) and the collection of enhanced toll tax (₹10 and ₹100) by the Agra Development Authority (ADA).
- Observed that neither the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) nor the Union Government receives a significant share of the toll revenue, which is instead retained almost entirely by ADA.
- Continued to monitor the establishment of a green belt around the monument and the construction of a modern slaughterhouse at Agra.
- Issued a series of directions to Union Ministries, the State of Uttar Pradesh, National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), and the alleged contemners.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Shri Kamal Nath and specified officers of the Special Cell should be held guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance with prior directions.
- Whether the present allocation of toll-tax revenue to the Agra Development Authority is compatible with the imperative to preserve the Taj Mahal and maintain the city of Agra.
- What immediate steps must be taken to implement the Court-ordered green belt around the Taj Mahal.
- The timeline and responsibility for designing and establishing a modern slaughterhouse in Agra in order to address environmental concerns.
Arguments of the Parties
Statements on behalf of the Alleged Contemners
- Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. V. R. Reddy informed the Court that the contemners and other Government of India authorities would “take immediate steps to plant the green belt” as already directed and would file a progress report.
Union of India (Slaughterhouse Project)
- Counsel, after consulting Dr. Babu Ram (Assistant Commissioner, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying), stated that the Agra slaughterhouse project would be executed on a turnkey basis.
- It was further submitted that NDDB had agreed to act as consultant for designing, drawings, and cost estimation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook the following analytical steps:
- Contempt Aspect: After examining the affidavits filed by Shri Kamal Nath and others, the bench found them unsatisfactory, forming a prima facie opinion that contempt proceedings were warranted. Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued, returnable on 12-07-1996.
- Green-Belt Compliance: The Court recorded the Additional Solicitor General’s undertaking that immediate plantation would commence and required progress reports, thereby reinforcing previous environmental directives.
- Toll-Tax Allocation: Relying on judicial notice of ADA’s limited contribution to conservation efforts, the Court expressed a preliminary view that ADA “does not deserve” the large revenue share and that the “totality” of funds should be channelled toward Taj preservation and city beautification. It, therefore, sought affidavits from the Secretaries of Environment and Tourism (Government of India) and the Secretary of Tourism & Urban Development (U.P.) within two weeks.
- Administrative Directions: To facilitate swift governmental response, the Registry was ordered to serve notices on the concerned Secretaries within three days.
- Slaughterhouse Project: Dissatisfied with NDDB’s request for three months to prepare designs and estimates, the Court directed completion within one month and required an affidavit from a responsible NDDB officer within two weeks.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: Show-cause notices for contempt were issued to Shri Kamal Nath and officers (Serial Nos. 3–12). Notices were also issued to Union and State officials regarding toll-tax utilisation, and to NDDB for expeditious completion of slaughterhouse project documentation. Compliance timelines were fixed (one month for NDDB; two weeks for government affidavits).
Implications: The order escalates accountability for prior non-compliance through potential contempt sanctions, tightens environmental enforcement around the Taj Mahal, and accelerates infrastructural measures (green belt and slaughterhouse) aimed at mitigating pollution. No new legal precedent was set, but the directives exert immediate administrative pressure on multiple governmental bodies.
1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 20-2-1996, affidavits have been filed by Mr Kamal Nath and other officers and members of the Special Cell. We have been taken through the affidavits. We are not satisfied with the same. We are prima facie of the view that the contempt proceedings be initiated against all these persons.
2. Issue notice to Shri Kamal Nath and officers from Serial Nos. 3 to 12 mentioned at p. 4 of the office report dated 14-3-1996 returnable on 12-7-1996 to show cause why they be not held guilty for contempt of court and be punished suitably.
3. Mr V.R Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the contemners, states that the contemners as well as the other authorities of the Government of India shall take immediate steps to plant the green belt as directed by this Court from time to time. He may do so. He further states that he would file the progress report in this respect.
4. We are in the process of hearing arguments regarding preservation of the Taj and protecting the environment in the Taj Trapezium. Mr Mahajan, learned counsel has taken us through the part of the affidavit filed by Mr P.B.S Senger, Superintending Archaeologist, Agra Circle, Agra, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit are as under:
“That there is a significant increase of visitors to this monument. On the basis of the sale admission tickets, there were about 11.5 lakh visitors in the year 1990-91 which have increased to over 20 lakhs in the year 1993-94. The above figures do not include the number of children below 15 years, State guests, official delegates, etc., who are exempted from payment of entrance fee besides a large number of visitors who come on Fridays when entry is free. Some photographs showing the crowd are annexed as Annexure III.
Another reason for a large crowd on Friday is due to the reason that the Agra Development Authority has enhanced the toll tax from Rs 1.50 to Rs 10.00 and Rs 100.00 during morning and evening hours. This has resulted in overcrowding at the monument especially after 8 a.m and before 4 p.m The photographs showing a long queue between 14.00 to 16.00 hrs are enclosed herewith as Annexure IV.”
5. It is obvious that more than 20 lakh people visit the Taj Mahal every year. The toll tax now charged is Rs 10 and Rs 100 as indicated in para 11, quoted above.
6. ASI or the Government of India do not get any share out of the toll tax collected from the visitors. Only an additional fee of fifty paise per visitor is charged which goes to the Consolidated Fund of India. The net result is that almost the totality of the amount which is collected from the visitors goes to the Development Authority, Agra. This Court has been monitoring the cases relating to environment protection and pollution control in the Taj Trapezium for about the last four years. We are in a position to take judicial notice of the fact that the Agra Development Authority has not done much to preserve the Taj or to develop the city of Agra. We are prima facie of the view that the Agra Development Authority does not deserve such a large amount of share out of the money collected from the visitors. The totality of this amount should be spent on the preservation of the Taj and cleaning the city of Agra where lakhs of people come from all over the world every year. Apart from the Taj Mahal, the city has also to be made beautiful and attractive.
7. We issue notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Government of India, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, and Secretary, Tourism and Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to examine this matter and give their response to this Court by way of an affidavit of a responsible officer within two weeks of the receipt of this order. Mr Ashok K. Srivastava, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
8. Registry to serve notices to the Secretaries of the Government of India within three days.
9. To come up on 4-4-1996.
Slaughterhouse matter
10. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 23-2-1996, Dr Babu Ram, Assistant Commissioner (Carcass Utilisation), Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has filed an affidavit. Learned counsel for the Union of India, after consulting Dr Babu Ram, states that the project of constructing a slaughterhouse at Agra shall be executed on a turnkey basis. He further states that NDDB has agreed to act as a consultant. NDDB has agreed to do the designing, preparation of drawings and estimation of costs.
11. We issue notice to NDDB through its Delhi office to indicate as to within how much time the initial work to be done by NDDB shall be completed. We have been informed that NDDB wants three months' time for this purpose. We do not agree. We request the NDDB to complete the work of designing, preparation of drawings and estimation of costs within a period of one month of the receipt of this order. We direct that a responsible officer of NDDB should file an affidavit in this Court within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
12. A copy of the order be served on the local office of NDDB through Dr Babu Ram, who is present in court.
13. To come up on 4-4-1996.
Court Master
Alert