M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2020)
About the case:
1) Case Title- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2020)
2) Citations- AIR online 2020 SC 684
3) Jurisdiction- Original Jurisdiction under Ar. 32
4) Date of Judgement- 21st March 2024
5) Bench- Justice Arun Mishra, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Krishna Murari
6) Petitioners- M.C. Mehta
7) Respondent – Union of India
8) Legal Provisions involved – Ar.21, Ar. 32, environmental law principles – polluter pays and precautionary principles, Air (prevention and control of Pollution) Act,1981 , Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Every year, as the winter sets in, Delhi and its surrounding regions experience an alarming rise in air pollution. Due to the heavy smog flights are delayed, students at school wear masks, hospital marks a rise in respiratory cases and the sky is gloomy for weeks.
This is not a natural phenomenon but largely due to humans. One of the primary causes of this is the practice of Stubble burning by the farmers in neighbouring states like Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, After the harvesting paddy, a crop residue (stubble) is left which is nothing but tons of crops in their fields. Farmers lack affordable alternatives and therefore face tight sowing schedules, many of them choose to burn this residue in the open. The smoke generated out of this rises into air, travels with wind and settles over the Delhi- NCR region, compounding the already poor air value caused by the heavy traffic, manufacturing emissions and construction dust.
This is a recurring problem. The reports from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) and even international agencies like WHO, since long period have jagged out how hazardously toxic the air becomes during the post- harvest season. In reality, Delhi has ranked amongst the most contaminated cities in the world for several years.
What made these issues the worst was the government’s constant failure to enforce the law. Both the Union and State governments were well known of the crisis. Everything was known to them, the health emergency it caused in which children, ageing and patients with asthma are the worst sufferers. Yet, year after year, they answered with half- hearted measures, poor coordination and passing the blame.
This context led M.C. Mehta, a veteran and eminent environmental lawyer and activist, to return to the Supreme Court with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Mehta has a long history of environment litigation which includes landmark cases on the Ganga River, industrial pollution, and vehicular emissions. In this 2020 case, he asked the court to step in and hold the governments liable for failing to curb stubble burning and protect citizens’ health.
Mehta claimed that the circumstance was not just a policy failure but a constitutional violation. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution promises the Right to Life and this cannot be relished unless the air is toxin free. He urged the Court to treat this issue as an outbreak on the very dignity and existence of human life.
The Supreme Court took the matter seriously, recognizing that the situation had gone beyond tolerable limits. The case turned into a Climate and Constitutional emergency where the Court had to decide whether it should intervene in the absence of effective executive action and if so, then how.
ISSUES RAISED
- Can the state be held liable for failing to avert stubble burning which results into pollution?
- Is stubble burning and the delay of the state a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21?
- Should the judiciary issue mandatory order to enforce environmental laws?
- Does judicial intrusion violate the principles of separation of powers?
CONTENTIONS
Arguments by the PETITIONER (M.C. Mehta)
M.C. Mehta move towards the court of law with deep apprehension for public health and environmental deprivation. His contentions were grounded in both legal frameworks and real-world consequences.
Medical Emergency: He offered medical studies and environmental information that demonstrate the impact of toxic air on children, the elderly and the asthma patients. Delhi’s Air Quality Index (AQI) frequently arrived the severe or hazardous category.
Indecision despite laws: Mehta indicated that India already had tough laws like Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which clearly debarred such open burning. Yet the enforcement authorities had unsuccessful to act.
Policy without execution: He criticized the bureaucratic excuses stating that schemes and subsidies existed on paper but never reached farmers effectively.
Violation of rights: According to Mehta, allowing such pollution was almost the same as violating Article 21, which includes the right to health, clean environment, and dignifies life.
Judicial duty: In conclusion, he reminded the court that it had constitutional power under Article 32 to protect citizens’ rights when the executive failed to bring.
Arguments by the RESPONDENTS (Union of India and State Government)
The Union and State governments attempted to rationalize their activities but ended up exposing breaches in coordination and commitment.
Limitations of Farmers: States claimed that small farmers lacked resources to adopt alternatives like the Happy Seeder machine or straw management systems.
Centre vs State: The Union Government specified that it had issues compulsory guidelines and disbursed funds. However, laws and order, agriculture and implementation fell under State List subjects and hence the prime burden was on state governments.
Limited power to enforce: Governments claimed their agriculture and enforcement departments were understaffed and underfunded.
Judicial Restraint: They also thinly warned that too much judicial intervention in policy-making might blur the separation of powers, disturbing the executive efficiency.
COURT’S RATIONALE AND JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India was extremely troubled by the state of Delhi’s air and the procrastination of government. During the hearing, the bench made it strong and clear that this was no longer just an ecological alarm but was a public health emergency of constitutional scopes. The air pollution, especially during the stubble burning season, had reached such life-threatening levels that it directly affected millions of lives on a daily basis. The court recognized that such neglect could no longer be overlooked and left solely to bureaucratic decision- making.
- Right to Clean Air is a Fundamental right
The Court began by upholding that clean air is not an extravagance or privilege but an elementary right under Article 21 of the constitution of India which assurances the Right to Life. The bench emphasized that the Constitution does not just guard the right to exist, but the right to live with dignity, health and safety. The Court said toxic air strips people of that dignity and threats their very reality.
- Unembellished Executive Failure
The judgement pointed out the long-standing disappointment of both the Union and the State Governments. It distinguished that various laws such as the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981, and the Environment Protection Act,1986 were robust on paper but frail in enforcement. The Pollution Control Boards required adequate staff, equipment, and authority. Monitoring was inconsistent, and penalties were either not compulsory or poorly collected.
The court was especially punitive on the “passing the-the-blame” approach of diverse governments. Instead of taking joint responsibility, they blamed each other, and the farmers were left caught in between with no material support.
- Judicial Intervention was Obligatory
The court acknowledged that ideally such matters should be handled by the executive and legislature. However, in the face of protracted administrative paralysis the judiciary could not remain a quiet spectator. The Court stated that when constitutional rights are being uninterruptedly violated, judicial intervention is not outsmarted, it’s a duty. - Appointment of Monitoring Committee
To ensure direct supervision, the court took the unprecedented step by appointing Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur to principal a one-member monitoring committee. He was empowered to harmonize with states, pollution boards, and district magistrates to ensure real-time compliance with pollution control orders. - Comprehensive Direction
The Court issues comprehensive orders counting- To provide farmers with the affordable alternatives like Happy Seeders, by launching awareness campaigns in rural areas, by generating emergency helplines and reporting apps and the requirement of fortnightly compliance reports from state officials.
The judgement was bold aide-memoire that environmental protection and human health are not negotiable. Inaction by state is a direct assault on constitutional values and the judiciary has a legitimate role in striding in when life and health are endangered.
DEFECTS IN LAW
Despite the court’s effort, this case exposed some serious flaws in India’s environmental governance system:
- Lack of Enforcement Mechanism: Laws exist, but local implementation is weak due to poor staffing and outdated practices.
- Absence of Accountability: Government officials are rarely held accountable for non-compliance.
- Punitive instead of Supportive Measures: Farmers are penalized but rarely supported with tools and education to switch to cleaner methods.
- Fragmented Federal Response: The federal structure sometimes leads to Inter governmental confusion, weakening pollution control.
- No Emergency Framework: There is no dedicated emergency response law for environmental crises that affect public health at such large scale.
INFERENCE
In my interpretation, the judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is one of the most powerful illustrations of the bench pacing up when the executive constantly fails to act. It wasn’t just about controlling pollution or issuing directions but it was primarily about reaffirming the core potential of our Constitution, that every individual has the right to life, and that right embraces living with dignity and breathing clean air.
I personally have confidence in that this case shows how constitutional rights cannot be suspended by administrative lethargy or political blame games. The Supreme Court did not perform out of arrogance or an intention to nullification the powers of the legislature or executive. It acted as it was left with no choice. Citizens were grieving. Children were growing up with injured lungs. Patients were suffocating in their own homes. And yet, the people in power were busy arguing over who should take responsibility.
The judgment’s real strength lies in its ethical clarity. The court didn’t mince words. It said what required to be said and acknowledged the science behind the pollution crisis. It recognized the lived authenticity of the people. It even exhibited empathy towards farmers, emphasizing that they need support not punishment, if they are to abandon stubble burning practices. That kind of nuanced thinking is rare in environmental commandment and policy.
I also appreciate how the courts didn’t stop at legal declarations. It took practical stages appointing a monitoring committee, issuing clear directives, and settling timelines. This was not just symbolic judicial involvement but was problem resolution through constitutional tools.
However, I do believe that this judgment was necessary, it also indicates a troubling truth. India’s environmental crisis is no longer about a deficiency of law, but a deficiency of political determination. We have vigorous environmental statutes, expert agencies and even international commitments under climate treaties. Nonetheless enforcement is either selective, slow, or completely absent. Courts can temporarily push things forward, but they cannot run the government. That’s why the solution has to be extra systemic.
In my opinion, the real legacy of this case should be a paradigm modification in how we assess governance and sustainability. Environmental protection is not an extravagance for the elite. It is a matter of survival for the underprivileged, the young and the vulnerable. Governments must stopover treating it as an afterthought or a PR campaign. Instead, it should be interlaced into agricultural policies, budget planning, public health systems, and even school curricula.
To accomplish, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is not just a climate litigation case. It is a call to integrity. The judiciary did its job. Today it is the time for executive, legislature and every citizen to do theirs. Since fresh air is not a gift we leave for future generations, it is a debt we owe them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2020) 7 SCC 390
- Article.246- Schedule. 7- Constitution of India
- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No.14 of 1981
- The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986
- Article 21 of Constitution of India.
- Article 32 of Constitution of India
- Central Pollution Control Board, National Air Quality Index
[https://cpcb.nic.in] - Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Guidelines for Management of Crop Residue [https://moef.gov.in]