Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

In 1984, M.C. Mehta's landmark public interest litigation marked a turning point in India's environmental jurisprudence. The case brought unprecedented judicial attention to air pollution, establishing the right to a clean environment as fundamental to human life. By challenging existing governmental approaches, Mehta's petition opened a new chapter in environmental protection and judicial activism. This legal intervention set the stage for a complex, ongoing battle against urban environmental degradation. 

What Are the Key Challenges and Solutions for Managing Urban Air Pollution? 

• Urban Air Pollution Challenges 
  • Air pollution is a persistent "wicked problem" that has been ongoing since at least 1984 
  • Despite efforts, economic growth and population increase have outpaced pollution control measures 
  • The problem is complex and requires long-term, transformative solutions 
• Sources of Pollution 
  • 60% of toxicity comes from vehicular emissions 
  • 20% from soil dust 
  • Less than 20% from other sources 
  • Stubble burning has a minimal impact (less than 1% in Delhi on a specific date) 
• Governance and Policy Challenges 
  • Existing approaches are mostly bureaucratic and cosmetic 
  • Lack of effective coordination between administrative units 
  • Difficulty in implementing comprehensive pollution management strategies 
• Technological and Societal Constraints 
  • Implementing new emission standards is challenging due to technological limitations 
  • Farmers face constraints in adopting alternative practices (e.g., crop burning) 
  • Difficulty in balancing economic needs with environmental concerns 
• Comparative Urban Pollution Management 
  • Comparison with cities like Los Angeles and Beijing shows similar challenges 
  • Beijing's approach is noted as more advanced, with:  
    • Extensive air quality monitoring (over 1000 PM 2.5 sensors) 
    • Better public transportation 
    • Advanced forecasting and warning systems 
• Legal and Policy Recommendations 
  • Need for a comprehensive regional toxicity management plan 
  • Mandate for Graded Response Action Plan 
  • Focus on long-term, integrated measures rather than episodic interventions 

What was the Background of M C Mehta PIL in 1984? 

• The Taj Mahal, an iconic symbol of India's heritage, faced severe deterioration due to rising air pollution in and around Agra. 
• Industrial emissions, vehicular pollution, and the operation of the Mathura Refinery were identified as primary sources of pollutants harming the monument's pristine white marble. 
• Sulfur dioxide emissions, when mixed with moisture, caused acid rain, leading to yellowing, blackening, and corrosion of the marble. 
• Studies revealed significant air quality deterioration in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), a designated area surrounding the Taj Mahal. 
• Polluting industries, including foundries, brick kilns, and chemical factories, were concentrated in and near the TTZ, contributing to high levels of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. 
• The situation was exacerbated by unchecked urbanization, inadequate pollution control measures, and reliance on fossil fuels like coal and coke in industries. 
• M.C. Mehta, a public-spirited lawyer, filed a petition seeking intervention to prevent further damage to the Taj Mahal and ensure stricter environmental safeguards in the TTZ. 
• The case highlighted the need for sustainable industrial practices and urgent steps to preserve India’s cultural and architectural legacy. 

What were the Court Observations in this Case? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the Taj Mahal, a monument of international repute, was under serious threat due to industrial emissions, vehicular pollution, and the operations of the Mathura Oil Refinery. 
• It noted that sulfur dioxide emissions combined with atmospheric moisture formed acid rain, which was causing irreversible damage to the marble structure. 
• The Court acknowledged expert reports, including those by NEERI and the Varadharajan Committee, which conclusively identified the industries within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) as significant contributors to air pollution. 
• It held that the deteriorating air quality in the TTZ violated constitutional provisions safeguarding environmental and cultural heritage under Articles 21 and 48A. 
• The Court emphasized the need for urgent measures to shift polluting industries out of the TTZ and directed the adoption of cleaner fuels like natural gas to mitigate pollution. 
• It observed that industrial compliance with environmental standards was inadequate and stated the failure of pollution control mechanisms in the region. 
• The Court recognized its duty to balance development and environmental protection, stressing that economic interests could not override the imperative to preserve a monument of such historical and cultural significance. 
• It directed the formation of an action plan to monitor and control pollution in the TTZ, including creating a green belt and relocating industries. 
• The judgment underscored the principle of sustainable development and the State's responsibility to ensure a pollution-free environment for the preservation of national heritage. 

What were the Court’s observations on the environmental degradation of the Taj Mahal? 

• The Supreme Court referred to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, emphasizing that it imposes a statutory obligation on industries and authorities to prevent and control air pollution. 
• It highlighted that the Act mandates the establishment of pollution control boards at the Central and State levels to enforce air quality standards effectively. 
• The Court noted that industries within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) were not adhering to the provisions of the Act, particularly regarding the installation of pollution control devices. 
• It stressed that under Section 21 of the Act, industries are prohibited from operating without obtaining consent from the State Pollution Control Board, ensuring compliance with air pollution norms. 
• The Court observed that the failure of industries to comply with the Act contributed to the degradation of air quality in the TTZ, exacerbating the damage to the Taj Mahal. 
• It underlined the responsibility of the State Pollution Control Board to monitor and regulate emissions under the Act and take strict action against violators. 
• The Court directed industries to adopt cleaner technologies and switch to alternative fuels like natural gas, as provided under the regulatory framework of the Act. 
• It was said that non-compliance with the Air Act would lead to closure orders for polluting units, reaffirming its commitment to enforce the law in the interest of environmental preservation. 

Has M.C. Mehta's 1984 PIL Effectively Addressed Delhi's Air Pollution? 

• Since M.C. Mehta's 1984 public interest litigation, air pollution has been a persistent challenge in Delhi. 
• The legal framework established through Mehta's case recognized environmental protection as a fundamental right to life. 
• Despite judicial interventions, the growing economy and population have outpaced pollution control measures. 
• The case stated the need for judicial review to move from guiding government decisions to actively implementing environmental protections. 
• The litigation exposed the complexity of addressing urban environmental challenges through legal mechanisms. 
• Subsequent legal actions have struggled to develop comprehensive solutions to dispersed pollution sources. 
• The Supreme Court has continued to use judicial review to question the effectiveness of pollution control strategies. 
• The M C Mehta case initiated a long-term legal approach to environmental protection that continues to evolve. 

Conclusion  

The legacy of the M C Mehta case reveals the enduring challenges of environmental protection through legal means. While the litigation successfully established critical legal principles, practical implementation remains elusive. The ongoing struggle demonstrates the need for a more integrated, comprehensive approach to urban environmental management. Ultimately, the case represents a critical milestone in recognizing environmental rights, even as it exposes the limitations of purely legal solutions.