PR ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATIONS: ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-379

In the notes of submissions which have been tendered before this Court, an alternative perspective on facts has been sought to be established. We are not inclined in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the High Court. It must be noted that the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the findings of statutory authorities and bodies entrusted with requisite powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1974¹⁰⁰ and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981.

Apart from the exercise of jurisdiction by the¹²⁰ statutory authorities, the proceedings before this Court had been preceded by an evaluation by the High Court which is not shown to suffer from error that would warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. No special circumstances exist which justify the exercise of discretion by this Court nor is the conscience of the Court shocked by the judgment of the High Court.

There is no doubt that the closure of the industry is²⁰⁰ not a matter of first choice. The nature of the violations and the repeated nature of the breaches coupled with the severity of the breach of environmental norms would have left neither the statutory authorities nor the High Court with²⁴⁰ the option to take any other view unless they were to be oblivious of their plain duty. We are conscious of the fact that the unit, as this Court observed in its decision in 2013, has been contributing to the productive assets of the nation and providing employment and revenue in the area.

While these aspects have unquestioned³⁰⁰ relevance, the Court has to be mindful of other well-settled principles including the principles of sustainable development, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and the public trust doctrine. The ‘polluter pays’ principle, a widely accepted norm in international and domestic environmental law, asserts that those who pollute or degrade the environment should bear the costs of mitigation and restoration. This principle serves³⁶⁰ as a reminder that economic activities should not come at the expense of environmental degradation or the health of the population.

In addition, the public trust doctrine, recognized in various jurisdictions, including India, establishes that the state holds natural resources⁴⁰⁰ in trust for the benefit of the public. It reinforces the idea that the State must act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace are protected against exploitation or degradation.

These principles underscore the importance of balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns. While the industry has played a role in economic growth, the health and welfare of the residents of the area is a matter of⁴⁸⁰ utmost concern. In the ultimate analysis, the State Government is responsible for preserving and protecting their concerns.

As consistently held⁵⁰⁰ in numerous decisions of this Court, the right to a clean environment is an indispensable entitlement extended to all persons. Air, which is polluted beyond the permissible limit, not only has a detrimental impact on all life forms including humans, but also triggers a cascade of ecological ramifications. The same is true for polluted water, where the pervasive contamination poses⁶⁰⁰ a profound threat to the delicate balance of ecosystems.

The impact of environmental pollution and degradation is far- reaching. It is often not only severe but also persists over the long term. While some adverse effects may be immediately evident, the intensity of other kinds of harm reveals itself over time. Persons who live in surrounding areas may develop diseases which not only result in financial burdens but also impact the quality of life.

The development and growth of children in these communities may become stunted, creating a tragic legacy of compromised potential. Basic necessities, such as access to potable⁷⁰⁰ water, may not be met, exacerbating the challenges faced by these populations. There is no doubt about the fact that⁷²⁰ such adverse effects are felt more deeply by marginalized and poor communities, for whom it becomes very difficult to escape the cycle of poverty.

This Court is also alive to the concept of intergenerational equity, which suggests that present residents of the earth hold the earth in trust for future generations and at the same time the present generation is entitled to reap benefits from it. The planet and its resources must be conserved and managed for the use and⁸⁰⁰ enjoyment of future generations, emphasising the obligation to safeguard the environmental heritage for the well-being of all.

It is a fundamental truth that all persons have the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live a life⁸⁴⁰ free from disease and sickness. These rights are not only recognized as essential components of human rights but are also enshrined in various international treaties and agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement.

As such, they must be protected and upheld by governments and institutions worldwide, even as we⁹⁰⁰ generate employment and industry. The ultimate aim of all our endeavours is for all people to be able to live a good life. Without these basic rights, increased revenue and employment cease to have any real meaning.

It is not merely about economic growth but about ensuring the well-being and dignity of every individual. As we pursue development, we must⁹⁶⁰ prioritize the protection of these rights, recognizing that they are essential for sustainable progress. Only by safeguarding these fundamental rights can we truly create a world where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and prosper.

We have heard these proceedings¹⁰⁰⁰ for several days and after a careful consideration of the factual and legal material, we have come to the conclusion that the Special Leave Petitions do not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. For the above reasons, the Special Leave Petitions shall stand dismissed.¹⁰⁴⁶