http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 25

PETITIONER:

M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/02/1986

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

MADON, D.P.

OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:

1987 AIR 965 1986 SCR (1) 312

1986 SCC (2) 176 1986 SCALE (1)199

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1987 SC 982 (1)

ACT:

Public Interest Litigation and environment law - Power

of the Supreme Court to interfere under Article 32 of the

Constitution to permit the restarting of caustic chlorine

plant and under what conditions explained - Constitution of

Environment Court, need for - Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1981 section 40(2) of Factories Act, 1948

section 430(3) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and

section 133(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

HEADNOTE:

Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., a public limited company having

its registered in Delhi runs an enterprise called Shriram

Foods and Fertilizer Industries, which has several units

engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine,

hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder, superphosphate,

vanaspati, soap, sulphuric acid, alum anhydrous sodium

sulphate, high test hypochlorite and active earth. These

various units are all set up in a single complex situated in

approximately 76 acrea and they are surrounded by thickly

populated colonies such as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar,

Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Trinagar, Shastri Nagar and within a

radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is a

population of approximately 200,000. The caustic chlorine

plant was commissioned in the year 1949 and it has a

strength of about 263 employees' including executives,

supervisors, staff and workers.

In the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy realising the

hazardous character of caustic chlorine plant of Shriram,

the Labour Ministry of the Government of India commissioned

"Technica", a firm of consultants, Scientists and Engineers

of the United Kindgom who set out the areas of concern and

potential problems, in their Report. Thereafter, the Delhi

Administration constituted an Expert Committee under the

Chairmanship of Mr. Manmohan Singh. This Committee made

313

various recommendations in regard to safety and pollution

control measures with a view to minimising hazard to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 25

workmen and the public.

On December 4, 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took

place from one of the units of Shri Ram and this leakage

affected a large number of persons, both amongst the workmen

and the public and an Advocate practising in the Tis Hazari

Court died on account of inhalation of oleum gas. This

leakage resulted from the bursting of the tank containing

oleum gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on

which it was mounted and it created a scare amongst the

people residing in that area. Hardly had the people got out

of the shock of this disaster, when within two days, another

leakage, though this time a minor one took place as a result

of escape of oleum gas from the joints of a pipe. The

immediate response of the Delhi Administration to these two

leakages was the making of an order dated 6th December '85

by the District Magistrate Delhi, under sub-section (1) of

section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing and

requiring Shriram within two days from the date of issue of

the order to cease carrying on the occupation of

manufacturing and processing hazardous and lethal chemicals

and gases including chlorine, oleum, superchlorine,

phosphate etc. at their establishment in Delhi and within 7

days to remove such chemicals and gases from the said place

and not again to keep or store them at the same place or to

appear on 17th December 85 in the Court of District

Magistrate, Delhi to show cause why the order should not be

enforced. In the meantime, the "Agarwal Committee" appointed

by the Supreme Court visited the caustic chlorine plant and

submitted a Report in which it pointed out various

inadequacies in the pland and expressed the opinion that it

was not possible to eliminate hazard to the public so long

as the plant remained at the present location.

Since there were conflicting opinions put forward in

regard to the question whether the caustic chlorine plant

should be allowed to be restarted without any real hazard or

risk to the workmen and the public at large, another Expert

Committee called "Nilay Choudhary Committee" was constituted

by the Supreme Court, by its order dated 18th December 85.

This Committee visited the caustic chlorine plant on

December 28, 1985 and after considering Dr. Slater, Manmohan

Singh Committee, Agarwal Committee and after hearing the

parties

314

made a report setting out 14 recommendations which in its

opinion were required to be complied with by the management

in order to minimise the hazards due to possible chlorine

leak. The Committee also pointed out that it was in

agreement with the recommendations made in the Report of the

Manmohan Singh Committee which were exhaustive in nature and

obviously the recommendations made by it in its Report were

supplementary recommendation in addition to those contained

in Manmohan Singh Committee's Report.

In addition to these Committees, the Lt. Governor of

Delhi also appointed an Expert Committee called the

"Seturaman Committee" which submitted its Report on 3rd

January, 1986.

While these proceedings were going on before the Court,

an order dated 7th December 85 was issued by the Inspector

of Factories, Delhi in exercise of the power conferred under

section 40, sub-section (2) of the Factories Act, 1948,

prohibiting Shriram from using caustic chlorine and

sulphuric acid plants till adequate safety measures are

adopted and imminent danger to human life is eliminated.

Soon thereafter, on December 13, 1985 a show cause notice

was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 25

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, calling upon Shriram to show

cause as to why action for revocation of its licence should

not be taken under section 430, sub-section (3) of the Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for violation of the terms

and conditions of the licence. Shriram showed cause, by its

letter dated 23rd December' 85, against the proposed

cancellation of its licence but by an order dated 24th

December' 85, the Assistant Commissioner (Factories)

directed Shriram to stop industrial use of the premises at

which the chlorine caustic plant is located. The result is

that unless these two orders - one dated 7th December 1985

and the other dated 24th December 1985 - are vacated or

suspended, Shriram cannot restart the caustic chlorine

plant. Hence the Shriram's Writ Petition challenging the

said two orders.

Suspending the operation of the two orders ad-interim

to enable Shriram to restart the plants for manufacture of

caustic chlorine including its by products, the Court laid

down as many as eleven conditions, and

315

^

HELD: 1. All Expert Committees are unanimous in their

view that by adopting proper and adequate safety measures,

the element of risk to the workmen and the public can only

be minimised, but it cannot be totally eliminated. The

general concensus of opinion of all the Expert Committees is

that relocation of the caustic chlorine plant is the only

long term solution, if hazard to the community is to be

completely eliminated. Whether the caustic chlorine plant

should be directed to be shifted or relocated at a place

where there will be no hazard to the community and if so,

within what time-frame, is a question which will require

serious consideration and a National Policy will have to be

evolved by the Government for location of toxic or hazardous

industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard to

relocation of such industries with a view to eliminating

risk to the community likely to arise from the operation of

such industries. [325 B-D; 329 E-F]

1.2 It is undoubtedly true that chlorine gas is

dangerous to the life and health of the community and it

escapes either from the storage tanks or from the filled

cylinders or from any other point in the cause of

production, it is likely to affect the health and well being

of the workmen and the people in the vicinity. Both Agarwal

and Manmohan Singh Committees are agreed to their opinion

that chlorine is a hazardous gas and though smaller

concentrations of chlorine in the air cause only an

irritation and coughing, longer concentrations whether 25

parts per million (PPM) or 40 parts per million (PPM) are

likely to cause serious danger to life. However, in view of

the Report of yet another Expert Committee (consisting of

Dr. Manmohan Singh, Dr. Sharma, Prof. P. Khanna & Shri

Gharekhan) appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether

the various recommendations made in the earlier Reports were

substantially complied with or not, and taking into

consideration that even the restarting of the Vanaspati,

refined oil plant and recovery plants like soap, glycerine

and technical hard oil, not involving any health hazard,

cannot be possible unless the caustic chlorine plant is also

restarted and several other factors including the power of

the Board to renew or not to renew consent orders under the

Air Act and Water Act, the balance of convenience would tilt

in favour of Shriram to be allowed to restart their plants

subject to certain stringent conditions. [330 G-H; 331 C-D;

337 D-H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 25

316

1.3 Since cases involving issues of environmental

pollution, ecological destruction and conflicts over natural

resources are increasingly coming up for adjudication and

these cases involve assessment and evolution of scientific

and technical data, it might be desirable to set up

Enviornment Courts on the regional basis with one

professional Judge and two experts drawn from the Ecological

Sciences Research Group keeping in view the nature of the

case and the expertise required for its adjudication. There

would of course be a right of appeal to this Court from the

decision of the Environment Court. [345 H; 346 A-C]

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.

12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Anil B. Divan, Avadh Bihari, Danial Latifi, B. Datta,

Additional Solicitor General, M.C. Mehta (Petitioner-in-

person), Ravinder Narain, S. Kashwaha, D.N. Mishra, S.

Sukumaran of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Raju Ramachandran, R.D.

Agarwala, C.V.S. Rao, D. Kashwaha, R.N. Poddar, R. Mohan,

B.P. Maheshwari, M.C. Dua, Ravinder Bana, A.K. Nauriya, R.S.

Sodhi and Ms. Kitty Kumaramanglam for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI, C.J. Writ Petition No. 12739 of 1985 which

has been brought by way of public interest litigation raises

some seminal questions concerning the true scope and ambit

of Arts. 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the principles and

norms for determining the liability of large enterprises

engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products, the

basis on which damages in case of such liability should be

quantified and whether such large enterprises should be

allowed to continue to function in thickly populated areas

and if they are permitted so to function, what measures must

be taken for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the hazard

to the workmen and the community living in the

neighbourhood. These questions which have been raised by the

petitioner are questions of the greatest importance

particularly since, following upon the leakage of MIC gas

from the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, lawyers, judges and

jurists are considerably exercised as to what controls,

whether by way of relocation or by way of

317

installation of adequate safety devices, need to be imposed

on Corporations employing hazardous technology and producing

toxic or dangerous substances and if any liquid or gas

escapes which is injurious to the workmen and the people

living in the surrounding areas, on account of negligence or

otherwise, what is the extent of liability of such

Corporations and what remedies can be devised for enforcing

such liability with a view to securing payment of damages to

the persons affected by such leakage of liquid or gas. These

questions arise in the present case since on 4th and 6th

December, 1985, there was admittedly leakage of oleum gas

from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser

Industries and as a result of such leakage, several persons

were affected and according to the petitioner and the Delhi

Bar Association, one Advocate practising in the Tis Hazari

Courts died. We propose to hear detailed arguments on these

questions at a later date. But one pressing issue which has

to be decided by us immediately is whether we should allow

the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 25

Industries to be restarted and that is the question which we

are proceeding to decide in this judgment.

Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. is a public limited company

having its registered office in Delhi. It runs an enterprise

called Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries and this

enterprise has several units engaged in the manufacture of

caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching

powder, superphosphate, vanaspati, soap, sulphuric acid,

alum anhydrous sodium sulphate, high test hypochlorite and

active earth. These various units are all set up in a single

complex situated in approximately 76 acres and they are

surrounded by thickly populated colonies such as Punjabi

Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar

and Shastri Nagar and within a redius of 3 kilometres from

this complex there is population of approximately 200,000.

We are concerned in this Order only with the caustic

chlorine plant. This plant was commissioned in the year 1949

and it has a strength of about 263 employees including

executives, supervisors, staff and workers. It appears that

until the Bhopal tragedy, no one neither the management of

Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries (hereinafter

referred to as 'Shriram') not the Government seemed to have

bothered at all about the hazardous character of caustic

chlorine plant of Shriram. But, it seems that the Bhopal

disaster shook of the lethargy of everyone and

318

triggered off a new wave of consciousness and every

Government became alerted to the necessity of examining

whether industries employing hazardous technology and

producing dangerous commodities were equipped with proper

and adequate safety and pollution control devices and

whether they posed any danger to the workmen and the

community living around them. The Labour Ministry of the

Government of India accordingly commissioned 'Technica', a

firm of Consultants, Scientists and Engineers of United

Kingdom, to visit the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and

make a report in regard to the areas of concern and

potential problems relating to that plant. Dr. Slater

visited the caustic chlorine plant on behalf of Technica

sometime in June-July 1985 and submitted a report to the

Government of India summarising the initial impressions

formed during his visit and subsequent dialogue with the

management and with one Mr. Harries. This report was

admittedly not an indepth engineering study but it set out

the preliminary conclusions of Dr. Slater in regard to the

areas of concern and potential problems. We do not propose

to rely very much on this report since it is a preliminary

report.

It appears that a question was raised in Parliament

sometime in March 1985 in regard to the possibility of major

leakage of liquid chlorine from the caustic chlorine unit of

Shriram and of danger to the lives of thousands of workers

and others. The Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, in

answer to this question, stated in the floor of the House

that the Government of India was fully conscious of the

problem of hazards from dangerous and toxic processes and

assured the House that the necessary steps for securing

observance of safety standards would be taken early in the

interest of the workers and the general public. Pursuant to

this assurance, the Delhi Administration constituted an

Expert Committee consisting of Shri Manmohan Singh, Chief

Manager, IPCL, BARODA, as Chairman and 3 other persons as

Members to go into the existence of safety and pollution

control measures covering all aspects such as storage,

manufacture and handling of chlorine in Shriram and to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 25

suggest measures necessary for strengthening safety and

pollution control arrangements with a view to eliminating

community risk. The Manmohan Singh Committee visited the

caustic chlorine plant and inspected various operations

including storage tanks, cylinders and tonners and obtained

detailed information from the management and after a

thorough and exhaustive inquiry, submitted its Report to the

Government. This Report is a detailed Report

319

dealing exclusively with the caustic chlorine plant and

considerable reliance must, therefore, be placed upon it.

The Manmohan Singh Committee made various recommendations in

this Report in regard to safety and pollution control

measures with a view to minimising hazard to the workmen and

the public and obviously the caustic chlorine plant cannot

be allowed to be restarted unless these recommendations are

strictly complied with by the management of Shriram.

Now, on 4th December, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas

took place from one of the units of Shriram and this leakage

affected a large number of persons, both amongst the workmen

and the public, and, according to the petitioner, an

Advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Courts died on account

of inhalation of oleum gas. This leakage resulted from the

bursting of the tank containing oleum gas as a result of the

collapse of the structure on which it was mounte and it

created a scare amongst the people residing in that area.

Hardly had the people got out of the shock of this disaster

when, within two days, another leakage, though this time a

minor one, took place as a result of escape of oleum gas

from the joints of a pipe. The immediate response of the

Delhi Administration to these two leakages was the making of

an Order dated 6th December 1985 by the District Magistrate,

Delhi under sub-s.(1) of s.133 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, directing and requiring Shriram within two days

from the date of issue of the order to cease carrying on the

occupation of manufacturing and processing hazardous and

lethal chemicals and gases including chlorine, oleum, super-

chlorine, phosphate, etc. at their establishment in Delhi

and within 7 days to remove such chemicals and gases from

the said place and not again to keep or store them at the

same place or to appear on 17th December 1985 in the court

of the District Magistrate, Delhi to show cause why the

order should not be enforced. When we took up the writ

petitions for hearing on 7th December 1985, our attention

was drawn to this order made by the District Magistrate,

Delhi on 6th December 1985 and on perusing the order we

pointed out the inadequacies in it which had the effect of

virtually defeating the urgency of the action to be taken.

We had earlier appointed a team of Experts to visit the

caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and to report whether the

recommendations of the Manmohan Singh Committee had been

carried out by the management and this team of Experts

orally reported to us at the hearing on 7th December, 1985

that they

320

had been able to inspect the plant for only a couple of

hours and that cursory inspection showed that many of the

recommendations of the Manmohan Singh Committee appeared to

have been complied with and that too two one hundred MT

tanks for storage of chlorine which constituted a major

element of hazard or risk had been emptied. Since this

inspection made by the team of Experts had necessarily to be

very hurried and superficial on account of want of

sufficient time, we adjourned the writ petition to 13th

December, 1985 with a direction that the petitioner would be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 25

entitled to appoint his own team of experts who would be

allowed access to the caustic chlorine plant for the purpose

of ascertaining whether the various recommendations of the

Manmohan Singh Committee had been carried out or not and

whether there were any other drawbacks or deficiencies

likely to endanger the lives of workmen and the public. We

also, with a view to expediting adjudication of claims for

compensation on behalf of the victims of oleum gas leakage,

appointed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the Officer

before whom claims for compensation may be filed by persons

affected by leakage of oleum gas in the course of the two

incidents referred to above and we fixed time of four weeks

within which such claim of compensation may be filed before

the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We may point out

that subsequently by an Order dated 10.1.1986 we extended

the time for filing of compensation claims upto January 31,

1986. We also by our Orders dated 16.1.1986 and 21.1.1986

gave a further direction that those who file compensation

claims before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

should be got examined by a team of Medical Experts and this

task was entrusted to the Secretary of the Delhi State Legal

Aid and Advice Board. This direction was given by us with a

view to ensuring that contemporaneous medical evidence of

the injuries suffered by the claimants and of the cause of

such injury should be available in support of the claims for

compensation lodged by the victims of oleum gas leakage.

Pursuant to the liberty given by us, the petitioner

appointed an Expert Committee consisting of Dr. G.D.

Agarwal, Professor T. Shivaji Rao and Shri Purkayastha. This

Committee, which we shall hereafter refer to as the 'Agarwal

Committee', visited the caustic chlorine plant and submitted

a Report to this Court in which it pointed out various

inadequacies in the plant and expressed the opinion that it

was not possible

321

to eliminate hazard to the public so long as the plant

remained at the present location.

Since there were conflicting opinions put forward

before us in regard to the question whether the caustic

chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted without any

real hazard or risk to the workmen and the public at large,

we thought it desirable to appoint an independent team of

Experts to assist us in this task. We accordingly by an

Order dated 18th December, 1985 constituted a Committee of

Experts consisting of Dr. Nilay Choudhary as Chairman and

Dr. Aghoramurty and Mr. R.K. Garg as Members to inspect the

caustic chlorine plant and submit a report to the Court on

the following three points :

1. Whether the plant can be allowed to recommence

the operations in its present state and condition?

2. If not, what are the measures required to be

adopted against the hazard or possibility of

leaks, explosion, pollution of air and water etc.,

for this purpose?

3. How many of the safety devices against the

above hazards and possibility exist in the plant

at present and which of them, though necessary,

are not installed in the plant.

This Committee of Experts to which we shall hereafter,

for the sake of convenience, refer to as 'Nilay Choudhary

Committee', visited the caustic chlorine plant on December

28, 1985 and after considering the Reports of Doctor Slater,

Manmohan Singh Committee and Agarwal Committee and hearing

the parties made a report to the Court setting out 14

recommendations which in its opinion were required to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 25

complied with by the management in order to minimise the

hazards due to possible chlorine leak. Nilay Choudhary

Committee pointed out that it was in agreement with the

recommendations made in the Report of the Manmohan Singh

Committee which were exhaustive in nature and obviously the

recommendations made by it in its Report were supplementary

recommednations in addition to those contained in Manmohan

Singh Committee's Report.

We have thus two major Reports, one of Manmohan Singh

322

Committee and the other of Nilay Choudhary Committee,

setting out the recommendations which must be complied with

by the management of Shriram in order to minimise the hazard

or risk which the caustic chlorine plant poses to the

workmen and the public. The question is whether these

recommendations have been complied with by the management of

Shriram, for it is only if these recommendations have been

carried out that we can possibly consider whether the

caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted.

There is also one other report to which we must refer

in this connection and that is the Report made by the Expert

Committee appointed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi following

upon the leakage of oleum gas on 4th December 1985. Since

the leakage of oleum gas caused serious public concern, the

Lt. Governor of Delhi constituted an Expert committee

consisting of Shri N.K. Seturaman as Chairman and four other

experts as members to go into the causes of spillage of

oleum and its after-effects, to examine if inspection and

safety procedures prescribed under the existing laws and

rules were followed by Shriram, to fix responsibility for

the leakage of oleum gas, to review the emergency plans and

measures for containment of risk in the event of occurrence

of such situations and for elmination of pollution, to

examine any other aspects that may have a bearing on safety

pollution control and hazard to the public from the factory

of Shriram, to make specific recommendations with a view to

achieving effective pollution control and safety measures in

the factory and to advise whether the factory should be

shifted away from its present location in densely populated

area. This Committee to which we shall hereafter refer to as

the "Seturaman Committee" made an on the spot inspection of

the site of the factory and after obtaining the required

information about the plant submitted a Report on 3rd

January 1986. This Report, it must be conceded, deals

primarily with the safety procedures in the sulphuric acid

plant from which there was oleum gas leakage and is not

based on any indepth review and study of safety and

pollution control measures in the caustic chlorine plant.

But even so it does contain some observations which have

relevance to the question whether the caustic chlorine plant

poses any hazard to the community and what steps or measures

are necessary to be taken to minimise the risk to the people

living in the vicinity.

323

It is necessary at this stage to point out that whilst

these proceedings were going on before the Court, an order

dated 7th December 1985 was issued by the Inspector of

Factories, Delhi in exercise of the power conferred under

Section 40 sub-section (2) of the Factories Act, 1948. The

order commenced with the following recital, viz.,

"Whereas it has appeared to me that Caustic

chlorine plant and sulphuric acid plants are

running without adequate safety measures being

adopted by your management, thereby endangering

the human life and safety of the workers and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 25

public at large. Earlier notices of the Labour

Department asking your management to ensure proper

safety measures has not been complied with fully;

and

Whereas inspite of your management's assurances

vide letter dated 14.10.1985, on 4.12.85, non

adoption of the adequate safety measures have

resulted in collapse of the structure on which

oleum tank was mounted resulting in the massive

leakage of oleum causing fumes in the environment

affecting the health and safety of a large number

of residents of the Union Territory of Delhi; and

Whereas the factory is not still having adequate

safety measures required for such plants."

and prohibited Shriram from using the caustic chlorine and

sulphuric acid plants till adequate safety measures are

adopted and inminent danger to human life is eliminated.

Soon thereafter, on December 13, 1985, a show-cause notice

was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) of the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi calling upon Shriram to show-

cause as to why action for revocation of its licence should

not be taken under Section 430 sub-section (3) of the Delhi

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for violation of the terms

and conditions of the licence. Shriram by its letter dated

23rd December, 1985, showed cause against the proposed

cancellation of its licence but by an Order dated 24th

December 1985, the Assistant Commissioner (Factories)

directed Shriram to stop industrial use of the premises at

which the chlorine caustic plant is located. The result is

that unless these two orders - one dated 7th December 1985

and the other

324

dated 24th December 1985 - are vacated or suspended, Shriram

cannot be allowed to restart the caustic chlorine plant.

We may first consider what has been said by the various

Expert Committees in regard to the relocation of the caustic

Chlorine plant. All the Expert Committees are unanimous in

their view that by adopting proper and adequate safety

measures the elements of risk to the workmen and the public

can only be minimised but it cannot be totally eliminated.

Dr. Slater has in the last part of his Report pointed out

that inspection of the caustic chlorine plant revealed "a

worrying state of affairs" and he was of the opinion that

the plant was liable to be "classed as a major hazard

facility by applying most of the currently accepted

definitions" and it did not "measure up to the

responsibilities incumbent upon operators of such plants to

safeguard both public and employees so far as is reasonably

practicable." He made various recommendations which in his

opinion were required to be complied with by Shriram and he

added that if a substantial improvement in safety was not

possible or rapidly forthcoming along the lines of these

recommendations "the authorities should consider

constraining its activities to protect the public and

employees". He concluded by observing that "relocation is

the only practicable long term option which would guarantee

the complete removal of the community risk". The Manmohan

Singh Committee also observed towards the end of its Report

that "total elimination of risk to the comminity i.e. human

population from toxic plant hazardous industry located in

close proximity is improbable. However, the probability of

risk can be immensely reduced if the plant is run with

adequate precautions," and proceeded to make various

recommendations for "strict and immediate compliance with an

object to minimise risk to the workers and the population

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 25

around". Seturaman's Committee also pointed out in paragraph

10.8.1. of its Report that Shriram factory "is certainly a

perennial source of hazard to the community. These hazards

cannot be completely eliminated but could be minimised by

strict compliance of safety regulations. Giving due weight

to the hazard aspects as mentioned above and taking into

account the safety of the community as a whole," the

Manmohan Singh Committee observed that functioning of the

SEFI in the present location is not desirable. So also

Aggarwal Committee opined that "under so many uncertain

factors a chlorine manufacturing unit cannot be even

reasonably safe when located in proximity

325

to a densely populated area. In the circumstances, the only

practical solution is to relocate the chlorine plant at

least 10 k.ms. away from the urban limits of densely

populated areas with adequate safety measures." Finally

Nilay Choudhary Committee also stated that even if all the

recommendations made in its Report as also in the Report of

Manmohan Singh Committee were carried out, "the risk due to

major release of chlorine could only be reduced but not

completely eliminated. Complete elimination of the risk to

the population at large obviously lies in relocation of the

plant in an area without human habitation." It will thus be

seen that the general concensus of opinion of all the Expert

Committees is that relocation of the caustic chlorine plant

is the only long term solution if hazard to the community is

to be completely eliminated. We have therefore decided to

hear arguments on the question as to whether the caustic

chlorine plant should be directed to be shifted and

relocated at a place where there will be no hazard to the

community and if so, within what time frame. This is a

question which will require serious consideration and a

National Policy will have to be evolved by the Government

for location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision

will have to be taken in regard to relocation of such

industries with a view to eliminating risk to the community

likely to arise from the operation of such industries. But

the immediate question which we have to consider is whether

the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram should be allowed to

be reopened and if so, subject to what conditions, keeping

in mind constantly that the operation of the caustic

chlorine plant does involve a certain amount of hazard or

risk to the community.

Now it is an admitted fact that the caustic chlorine

plant was set up by Shriram more than 35 years ago and

whatever might have been the situation at the time when the

plant was installed, it cannot be disputed that, at present,

largely owing to the growth and development of the city,

there is sizable population living in the vicinity of the

plant and there is therefore hazard or risk to large numbers

of people, if, on account of any accident, whether

occasioned by negligence or not, chlorine gas escapes. The

various Expert Committees appointed by the Government as

well as by the Court clearly emphasise the danger to the

community living in the

326

vicinity of the caustic chlorine plant if there is exposure

to chlorine gas through an accidental release which may take

place on account of negligence or other unforeseen events.

Now it is evident from the reports of the Expert Committees

- and on this aspect of the matter they are all unanimous

that there was considerable negligence on the part of the

management of Shriram in the maintenance and operation of

the caustic chlorine plant and there were also defects and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 25

drawbacks in its structure and design. The report of Dr.

Slater which is the first report in the series clearly

pointed out that the safety policies, practices and

awareness on the part of the management needed to be

addressed urgently and added inter alia that the

effectiveness and availability of the design and emergency

arrangements was, to say the least, questionable and in the

real emergency involving a major spill, the measures would

probably prove ineffective in limiting serious consequences

inside and outside the plant. He also added that the

standard of housekeeping and training among the operational

staff was not good and it was symptomatic of inadequate

awareness of the importance of safety devices and the scale

of potential consequences following "loss of containment".

He also reiterated that the manner in which the caustic

chlorine plant was being maintained and operated did not

"measure up to the responsiblities incumbent upon operators

of such plants". So also the report of Manmohan Singh

Committee pointed out various drawbacks and deficiencies in

the structure and design of the caustic chlorine plant as

also in its maintenance and operation and made various

detailed recommendations which in the opinion of the

Manmohan Singh Committee needed to be strictly and

scrupulously carried out, if the risk to the workers and the

population in the vicinity was to be minimised. The Nilay

Choudhary Committee also made several recommendations in

order to minimise the hazard due to a possible leakage of

chlorine gas. The management of Shriram claimed that all

these recommendations made in the reports of Manmohan singh

committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee had been carried out

by Shriram and the possible hazard to the workers and the

community living in the vicinity was almost reduced to nil

and that Shriram should therefore be allowed to reopen the

caustic chlorine plant. The management of Shriram made it

clear that they did not intended to restart immediately

their plants manufacturing Sulphuric Acid, Oleum, Chloro-

sulphonic Acid, Super Phosphate and Granulated Fertiliser

Ferric Alum and Active Earth. Since these plants were

327

under detailed engineering audit and that out of these

plants Double Conversion Double Absorption sulphuric Acid

plant and Ferric Alum and Active Earth plants would be

started in the second phase "after attending to immediate

maintenance needs" and that so far as the other plants were

concerned, the schedule restarting would be communicated

later. The only plants in respect of which Shriram sought

the permission of the Court to restart were the power plant

and the plants manufacturing vanaspati and refined oil

including its by-products and recovery plants like soap,

glycerine and technical hard oil and the caustic chlorine

plant including plants manufacturing by-products such as

sodium sulphate, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder,

superchlor, sodium hypochlorite and container works. Our

directions in the present judgment must therefore

necessarily be confined only to these plants which Shriram

wants to restart immediately and we may make it clear that

so far as other plants which Shriram does not propose to

restart immediately are concerned, they shall not be

restarted by Shriram without obtaining further directions

from the Court, particularly since the machinery and

equipment in some of these plants is as pointed out in the

report of Seturaman Committee old and worn out and the

safety instrumentation is not adequate and the Court would

therefore have to be satisfied that the machinery and

equipment is properly renovated and its design and structure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 25

modernised with a view to ensuring maximum safety before the

Court can permit these plants to be recommissioned. Now, of

course, there could be no objection to the restarting to the

vanaspati and refined oil plant and other recovery plants

like soap, glycerine and technical hard oil, because they

admittedly do not involve any risk or hazard to the

community but these plants obviously cannot be restarted by

the management of Shriram unless and until the caustic

chlorine plant is also allowed to be reopened, because

hydrogen is needed for the vanaspati and refined oil plant

and hydrogen would not be available unless the caustic

chlorine plant is put into operation. The question which

therefore requires to be considered is whether all the

recommendations made in the reports of Manmohan Singh

Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee in regard to the

caustic chlorine plant have been carried out by the

management of Shriram and if so, whether Shriram should be

allowed to restart the caustic chlorine plant.

328

Since there was considerable controversy between the

parties as to whether the recommendations made in the report

of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee

had been carried out by the management of Shriram and a

notice dated 28th January, 1986 issued by the Inspector of

Factories (Delhi) to the management of Shriram set out seven

of these recommendations in respect of which the Inspector

of Factories did not appear to be satisfied as to whether

they had been complied with or not and a dispute was also

specifically raised in the affidavit of Mrs. M.Bassi, Joint

Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration, dated 31st

January, 1986 in regard to compliacne with the

recommendations of Manmohan Singh Committee set out in

paragraph 3 and the recommendations of Nilay Choudhary

Committee set out in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Court

decided to appoint another Expert Committee for the purpose

of ascertaining whether the various recommendations made in

the reports of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary

Committee had been complied with by the management. The

Court accordingly made an order on 31st January, 1986

appointing a Committee consisting of Shri Manmohan Singh,

Professor P. Khanna, Dr. Sharma and Shri Gharekhan to visit

the site of the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and report

to the Court whether the recommendations contained in the

reports of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary

Committee had been complied with by the management of

Shriram and even if there was no strict compliance with any

of these recommendations, whether the measures adopted by

the management of Shriram were sufficient to meet the

requirements set out in the reports of Manmohan Singh

Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee. It seems that

Professor P. Khanna could not make his services available

with the result that the assignment entrusted by us by our

order dated 31st January, 1986 had to be carried out by a

Committee consisting of only three persons, namely, Shri

Manmohan Singh, Dr. Sharma and Shri Gharekhan. The Committee

inspected the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram and

submitted its report dt. 3rd February, 1986 showing the

status of compliance of the recommendations made by the

Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee. The

report showed that barring the construction of a shed on the

space where filled cylinders are to be kept, which

construction is expected to be complete by 15th March, 1986,

all the recommendations made in the reports of Manmohan

Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee have been

329

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 25

complied with by the management of Shriram. The hydraulic

test carried out by Messrs. Nike Associates, Bombay, a firm

recognised by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bombay as

'competent person' to take up the responsibilities of

testing, examining and issuing certificate in respect of

pressure vessels also established that all the five tanks

had an adequate capacity of withstanding pressure. Since

however the authorities wanted a hydraulic test to be

carried out once again by the Regional Testing Centre,

Okhla, the management of Shriram got a fresh test carried

out by the Regional Testing Centre and the certificate

issued by the Regional Testing Centre dated 4th February,

1986 showed that all the five tanks were found to be strong

enough to withstand pressure of 375 dsig. for thirty

minutes' duration. The Committee also insisted that not more

than 140 filled chlorine cylinders should be stored and the

report shows that this limitation has been accepted by the

management of Shriram. The Committee also witnessed a

mockdrill with a view to ensuring whether there was a

specially trained group to handle any chlorine leakage

emergency and the Committee stated in the report that the

mock-drill was found to be satisfactory. There were also one

or two other recommendations in respect of which the

Committee observed that compliance with them could be tested

only during the operation of the plant.

The question is whether in view of the fact that all

the recommendations made in the Reports of Manmohan Singh

Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee have now been

complied with by the management of Shriram, the caustic

chlorine plant of Shriram should be allowed to be restarted.

The petitioner who appeared in person submitted vehemently

and passionately that the court should not permit the

caustic chlorine plant to be restarted because there was

always an element of hazard or risk to the community in its

operation. He urged that chlorine is a dangerous gas and

even if the utmost care is taken the possibility of its

accidental leakage cannot be ruled out and it would

therefore be imprudent to rul the risk of allowing the

caustic chlorine plant to be restarted. Mrs. Kumar-mangalam,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of lokahit Congress

Union as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Karamchari Ekta Union, however, expressed themselves

emphatically against the permanent closure of the caustic

chlorine plant and submitted that if the caustic chlorine

plant was not allowed to be restarted, it would not be

330

possible to operate the plants manufacturing the down stream

products and the result would be that about 4,000 workmen

would be thrown out of employment. Both the learned counsel

submitted that since all the recommendations made in the

reports of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary

Committee had been complied with by the management of

shriram and the possibility of risk or hazard to the

community had been considerably minimised and in their

opinion reduced to almost nil, the caustic chlorine plant

should be allowed to be reopened. The learned Addl.

Sclicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India

and the Delhi Administration stated before us that his

clients were not withdrawing their objection to the

reopening of the caustic chlorine plant but if the court was

satisfied that there was no real risk or hazard to the

community by reason of various recommendations of Manmohan

Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee having been

carried out by the management of Shriram, the Court might

make such order as it thinks fit, but in any event, strict

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 25

conditions should be imposed with a view to ensuring the

safety of the workmen and the people in the vicinity. The

learned counsel for Shriram strongly pleaded that now that

all the recommendations made in the reports of Manmohan

Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee had been

complied with by the management and every possible step had

been taken and measure adopted for the purpose of ensuring

complete safety in the operation of the caustic chlorine

plant, there was no real danger of escape of chlorine gas

and even if there was some leakage it could be only of a

small quantity and such leakage could easily be contained

and there was therefore no reason for permanently closing

down the caustic chlorine plant as it would result not only

in less to the company but also in unemployment of about

4,000 workmen and non-availability of chlorine to Delhi

Water Supply Undertaking and short supply of down stream

products. These rival contentions raise a very difficult and

delicate question before the court as to what course of

action to adopt.

It is undoubtedly true that chlorine gas is dangerous

to the life and health of the community and if it escapes

either from the storage tanks or from the filled cylinders

or from any other point in the course of production, it is

likely to affect the health and well-being of the workmen

and the people living in the vicinity. There was some

controversy before us

331

as to what is the concentration of chlorine in the air which

is dangerous to life and health. Aggarwal Committee in its

report stated that concentration of chlorine in the air

above 25 parts per million (PPM) is recognised by

Occupational Safety and Health Act (USA) as immediately

dangerous to life and health, but this was disputed on

behalf of the management of Shriram relying on the report of

Manmohan Singh Committee which opined that it is only where

concentration of chlorine in the air is between 40 to 60

parts per million (PPM) that exposure for 30 minutes would

be dangerous to life. It is not necessary for us to go into

this controversy and decide as to which view is correct,

whether the one expressed by Aggarwal Committee or the one

expressed by Manmohan Singh Committee. Fortunately, both

Committees are agreed that chlorine is a hazardous gas and

though smaller concentrations of chlorine in the air may

cause only irritation and coughing, larger concentrations,

whether above 25 parts per million (PPM) or above 40 parts

per million (PPM) are likely to cause serious danger to

life. There can therefore be no doubt that there would be

hazard to the life and health of the community, if there is

escape of chlorine gas from the caustic chlorine plant,

whether by reason of negligence of the management or due to

accidental release. In fact the Issue of the Journal

"Scavenger" for January, 1985 enumerates some major

accidents which have occurred in different parts of the

world in the process industries and this enumeration shows

that not less than 25 accidents have been caused by escape

of chlorine gas in the last about 70 years and many of these

accidents have resulted in death of quite a few persons. To

take only a few examples, the escape of chlorine from

storage tank in Wilsum Germany in 1952 resulted in death of

seven persons and similarly release of chlorine gas in

Bankstown, Australia in 1967 resulted in gassing of five

persons and on account of escape of chlorine gas in Baton

Rouge in 1976, about 10,000 persons had to be evacuated. It

is true that quite a few of these accidents arose on account

of escape of chlorine gas in course of transport by rail

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 25

tank cars but some accidents did occur on account of escape

of chlorine gas from storage tanks. We cannot therefore

ignore the possible hazard to the health and well-being of

the workmen and the people living in the vicinity on account

of escape of chlorine gas. We also cannot overlook the old

and worn out state of machinery and equipment, the

negligence of the management in the maintenance

332

and operation of the caustic chlorine plant and the

indifference shown by the management in installing proper

safety devices and safety instruments and taking proper and

adequate measures for ensuring safety of the workmen and the

people living in the vicinity. These are considerations

which are very relevant in deciding whether the caustic

chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted. But as

against these considerations, we must also take into account

the proven fact that all the recommendations made in the

Reports of Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary

Committee have been carried out by the management of Shriram

and it is the opinion of not only Manmohan singh Committee

and Nilay Choudhary Committee but also of the last Committee

appointed by us on 31st January, 1986 that since all these

recommendations have been complied with by the management in

satisfactory manner, Shriram may be allowed to restart the

caustic chlorine plant. There can be no doubt, particularly

having regard to the opinion of Manmohan Singh Committee,

Nilay Choudhary Committee and the last Committee appointed

by us, that the possibility of hazard or risk to the

community is considerably minimised and there is now no

appreciable risk of danger to the community if the caustic

chlorine plant is allowed to be restarted. We cannot also

ignore the interests of the workmen while deciding this

delicate and complex question. It could not be disputed

either by the Government of India or by the Delhi

Administration or even by the petitioner that the effect of

permanently closing down the caustic chlorine plant would be

to throw about 4,000 workmen out of employment and that such

closure would lead to their utter impoverishment. The Delhi

Water Supply Undertaking which gets its supply of chlorine

from Shriram would also have to find alternative sources of

supply and it was common ground between the parties that

such sources may be quite distant from Delhi. The production

of down stream products would also be seriously affected

resulting to some extent in short supply of these products.

These various considerations on both sides have to be

weighed and balanced and a decision has to be made at to on

which side the considerations preponderate and till the

balance. It is none too easy task, for the decision either

way may entail serious consequences. We have therefore

reflected over the various aspects of this rather difficult

and complex question with great anxiety and care and taking

an overall view of the diverse considerations we have, with

considerable hesitation, bordering almost on trepidation

reached the conclusion that, pending consideration of the

333

issue whether the caustic chlorine plant should be directed

to be shifted and relocated at some other place, the caustic

chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted by the

management of Shriram, subject to certain stringent

conditions which we propose to specify.

But before we proceed to set out the conditions which

must strictly be observed by the management of Shriram while

operating the caustic chlorine plant, we must deal with one

other question which was raised before us on behalf of the

Central Board of Prevention and Control of Water Pollution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 25

(hereinafter referred to as the Central Board). The Central

Board is constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the

Water Act) and it is also required to perform the functions

assigned under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)

Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act). Since

some of the plants of Shriram situate within the complex

including the vanaspati plant were discharging effluent,

Shriram was required to obtain consent for discharging

effluent from the Central Board under Section 25 of the

Water Act and Shriram accordingly made an application for

this purpose in the prescribed form. The Central Board

passed an Order on 19th April, 1979 granting consent to

Shriram to discharge effluent from their factory in the

sewer, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the

consent order. The consent granted to Shriram was renewed

from time to time and the last renewed Consent Order was

dated 22nd July, 1985 and it was valid upto 31st December,

1985. Pursuant to the Consent Order Shriram installed

effluent treatment plants in the vanaspati, stable bleaching

powder, super phosphate and active earth units with a view

to complying with the limiting standards stipulated by the

Central Board in the consent Order. The waste water in other

units was either solar dried in lagoons or recycled in the

different process houses and the major units emanating waste

water were thus vanaspati, active earth, superphosphate and

stable bleaching powder plants. The waste water effluent

from these four plants used to be drained out through one

common terminal outlet and the complaint of the Central

Board was that this combined effluent at the terminal outlet

never complied with the limiting standards prescribed by the

Central Board. The results of analysis of the samples

collected by the officers of the Central Board at the

terminal outlet were annexed as Annexure I to the

supplementary affidavit dated

334

19th December, 1985 filed by Shri P.R. Gharekhan on behalf

of the Central Board. The Central Board also repeatedly

complained that the effluent discharged from the vanaspati

plant was not in accordance with the limiting standards

prescribed in the Consent Order. Now, as pointed out by

Surendra Kumar, Senior Environmental Engineer in the employ

of Shriram, there are broadly two technologies available for

effluent treatment in vanaspati industry. One is the

technology of removing suspended solids by settling with the

help of clariflocculation and the other is the technology of

removing suspended solids, oils and grease and greasy solids

by flotation and skimming. The affidavit of Surendra Kumar

stated that the technology based on settling with the help

of clariflocculation was recommended by the Central Board

and Messrs Dorr Oliver were selected by Shriram in

consultation with the Central Board for supply of an

effluent treatment plant employing this technology. But,

unfortunately, the plant of Messrs Dorr Oliver failed to

give the guaranteed results presumably because this

technology was not satisfactory. The Central Board in fact

carried out a performance evaluation of this plant in

December, 1983 and they came to the conclusion that this

plant would require substantial changes to make it to

achieve stipulated effluent standards. It was then realised

that the technology of removal of impurities by flotation

method is more appropriate for vanaspati plant effluent and

Shriram accordingly once again, as pointed out in the

affidavit of Surendra Kumar, made a reference to the Central

Board. On 17th January, 1985 the Central Board directed that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 25

Messrs Kroft Engineering Company should be asked to set up a

pilot plant based on dissolved air flotation technology in

the vanaspati plant for treatability study of the effluent.

But despite the follow-up action taken by Shriram, the pilot

plant was not set up by Messrs Kroft Engineering Company.

Shriram thereupon in its anxiety to comply with the limiting

standards set by the Central Board in the Consent Order,

placed an order with another reputed supplier namely, Messrs

Patel Brothers of Bombay in June, 1985 for supply of a plant

based on flotation technology. Messrs Patel Brothers

guaranteed to instal and commission the plant by 31st

December, 1985 but the affidavits show that there has been

some delay in the installation of this plant and its

installation is now going to be completed by 28th February,

1986. Meanwhile, however, Shriram installed

335

at the terminal outlet a plant based on dissolved air

flotation technology of Messrs Krofta Engineering Company

and the counter-affidavit of Shri P.R. Gharekhan dated 13th

January, 1986 shows that the representatives of the Central

Board have verified that this terminal treatment plant has

been installed. However, the performance of this terminal

treatment plant is yet to be evaluated by the Central Board

in order to assess compliance with the limiting standards

stipulated in the Consent Order. The Central Board will

therefore have to evaluate the performance of this terminal

treatment plant after the caustic chlorine and other plants

of Shriram commence production. So far as the effluent

discharged by the active earth plant and stable bleaching

plant is concerned, it complies with the limiting standards

prescribed for it in the Consent Order but the effluent

discharged by the vanaspati plant does not comply with the

relevant limiting standards. Shriram has, however, stated

that once the plant ordered from Messrs Patel Brothers,

Bombay is installed, it will be possible to secure

compliance with the requirement of the limiting standards.

This of course will have to be assessed on the basis of

performance evaluation of the plant of Messrs Patel Brothers

when installed.

But there is one difficulty in the way of Shriram

restarting its vanaspati plant. The last renewed Consent

Order dated 2nd July, 1985 expired on 31st December, 1985

and obviously therefore Shriram cannot operate the vanaspati

plant and discharge effluent unless and until the Consent

Order is renewed, for the discharge of effluent without

Consent Order would be contrary to the provisions of the

Water Act. We, however, find that the Central Board has

stated in the affidavit filed in this behalf by Shri D.C.

Sharma, Assistant Environmental Engineer, that the Central

Board has no objection to grant temporary consent pursuant

to the provisions of the Water Act on condition that Shriram

would comply with all the recommendations of various

Committees appointed by this Court or otherwise and that

such consent would be valid only for a period of one month

from the date of issue of the Consent Order. Since we are

permitting Shriram to reopen its caustic chlorine vanaspati

and other plants above referred to, we would ask the Central

Board to grant a temporary Consent Order to Shriram valid

for a period of one month from the date of its issue and the

Central Board will take samples

336

from the effluent discharged from the vanaspati plant as

also at the terminal outlet and ascertain whether the

samples comply with the limiting standards set out in the

Consent Order. If the samples do not comply with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 25

relevant standards, the Central Board will immediately bring

such fact to the notice of this Court and it will be open to

the Central Board to take such action as it thinks fit

including nonrenewal of the Consent Order.

So far as compliance with the provisions of the Air Act

is concerned, the Central Government in consultation with

the Central Board issued a notification under Section 19(1)

of the Air Act notifying certain areas in the Union

Territory of Delhi as air pollution control area. The plants

of Shriram are admittedly situated in the air pollution

control area and the industries carried on by Shriram also

fall within the schedule of industries specified in the Air

Act. Shriram was therefore required to apply for a Consent

Order from the Central Board under Section 21 of the Air Act

and an application was accordingly made by Shriram on the

basis of which a Consent Order was issued by the Central

Board on 13th June, 1985 authorising Shriram to operate

their plants in the air pollution control area, subject to

the conditions set out in the Consent Order. The Consent

Order relates to three plants of Shriram, namely, sulphuric

acid plant, super phosphate plant and power plant. We are

not concerned at the present stage with the sulphuric acid

and super phosphate plants since permission to restart them

is not presently sought by Shriram and we need not therefore

pause to consider whether the conditions laid down in the

consent Order in respect of these two plants have been

complied with or not. So far as the power plant of Shriram

is concerned, it is not the case of the Central Board that

the conditions in the Consent Order in regard to the

operation of the power plant are not being complied with by

the management, though there is specific complaint made in

the affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Board that the

conditions in the Consent Order relating to sulphuric acid

and super phosphate plants are not being observed. We may

however point out that if the Central Board finds at any

time that the conditions in the Consent Order relating to

the power plant are not being complied with and the

particulate matter emitted by the stacks of the boilers is

more than 150 mg/Nm3, it will be open to the Central Board

to take whatever action is appropriate under the law.

337

Before we part with this topic of water and air

pollution by the plants operated by Shriram, we may point

out a most unsatisfactory state of affairs which seems to

prevail in the Delhi Municipal Corporation. The Municipal

Corporation sewer in the Nazafgarh area has admittedly been

lying chocked since 1980 with the result that Shriram has

since then not been able to discharge its domestic effluent

in the municipal sewer and the domestic effluent has to be

discharged in the Nazafgarh drain thereby adversely

affecting the standards prescribed by the Central Board. It

is difficult to understand as to why the Delhi Municipal

Corporation has not taken any steps for the last five years

to clean up the sewer so that it can be used for carrying

domestic effluent discharged by the people. We are not

issuing any direction in this behalf but we are certainly

constrained to express our deep sense of regret at the total

indifference of the Delhi Municipal Corporation in

discharging its obligations under the law.

We have therefore decided to permit Shriram to restart

its power plant as also plants for manufacture of caustic

chlorine inculding its by-products like sodium sulphate,

hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder, superchlor, and

sodium hypochlorite, vanaspati refined oil including its by-

products and recovery plants like soap, glycerine and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 25

technical hard oil and container works. But there are two

orders which prohibit Shriram from operating these plants.

One is the order dated 7th December, 1985 issued by the

Inspector of Factories, Delhi, prohibiting Shriram from

using the caustic chlorine and other plants till adequate

safety measures are adopted and imminent danger to human

life is eliminated and the other is the order dated 24th

December, 1985 issued by the Assistant Commissioner

(Factories) directing Shriram to stop industrial use of the

premises on which the caustic chlorine plant is located. The

validity of these two orders has been assailed by Shriram in

Writ Petition No. 26 of 1986. We are not inclined at the

present moment to vacate these two orders because the

permission which we are granting by this judgment to Shriram

to reopen these plants is as a temporary measure to be

reviewed at some point of time in the future and we would

therefore merely suspend the operation of these two orders

until further directions with a view to enabling Shriram to

restart these plants. But we are laying down certain

conditions which shall be strictly and

338

scrupulously followed by Shriram and if at any time it is

found that any one or more of these conditions are violated,

the permission granted by us will be liable to be withdrawn.

We formulate these conditions as follows:-

(1)Since it is clear from the affidavits and the

reports of the various Expert Committees that the

management of Shriram was negligent in the

operation and maintenance of the caustic chlorine

plant and did not take the necessary measures for

improving the design and quality of the plant and

equipment and installing adequate safety devices

and instruments with a view to ensuring the

maximum safety of the workers and the community

living in the vicinity and it is only after W.P.

No. 12739 of 1985 was filed and all the glaring

deviciencies were pointed out that the management

carried out various alterations and adopted

various measures in accordance with the

recommendations made by Manmohan Singh Committee

and Nilay Choudhary Committee, it is necessary

that an expert Committee should be appointed by us

which will monitor the operation and maintenance

of the plant and equipment and ensure the

continued implementation of the recommendations of

these two committees. We accordingly constituted

an Expert Committee consisting of Shri Manmohan

Singh, Shri P.R. Gharekhan and Professor P. Khanna

of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay -

and if Professor P. Khanna is not available for

any reason, Dr. Sharma of the University

Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay will

take his place as a member of the Expert Committee

and this Expert Committee will inspect the caustic

chlorine plant of Shriram at least once in a

fortnight and examine whether the recommendations

made by Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay

Choudhary Committee are being scrupulously

implemented by the management. The Expert

Committee will also examine the adequacy of the

design, materials, fabrication etc. of the

devices, instruments and other hardware calculated

to monitor, warn, avoid, control and handle all

situations arising on account of possible

accidental release of chlorine gas, keeping in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 25

mind

339

matereological factors, location of the plant and

the largeness of the population exposed to hazard

or risk. This examination may involve a thorough

check and experimentation at site with a view to

determining how for the safety measures adopted by

the management are adequate to deal with a

possible situation. The Expert Committee will

submit a report of its examination to this Court

immediately after completion of the examination

with copies to the petitioner and Shriram. The

first such examination shall be made by the Expert

Committee within one week of the restarting of the

caustic chlorine plant and it shall be followed by

a second examination within a further period of 15

days. If as a result of either such examination it

is found that there is default on the part of the

management in continuous compliance with any of

the recommendations made by Manmohan Singh

Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee or the

safety devices or instruments are not adequate or

are not in operation or are not properly

functioning, the petitioner will be at liberty to

immediately bring such default to the notice of

this Court so that in that event, the permission

granted to the management to restart the caustic

chlorine plant may be revoked. Shriram will,

within 3 days from today, deposit a sum of

Rs.30,000 in this Court to meet the travelling,

boarding and lodging expenses of the members of

the Expert Committee.

(2) One operator should be designated as

personally responsible for each safety device or

measures and the head of the caustic chlorine

division should be made individually responsible

for the efficient operation of such safety device

or measure. If at any time during examination by

the Expert Committee or inspection by the

Inspectorate it is found that any safety device or

measure is inoperative or is not properly

functioning, the head of the caustic chlorine

plant as well as the operator incharge of such

safety device or measure shall be held personally

responsible. Their duty shall be not merely

340

to report non-functioning or mal-functioning of

any safety device or measure to the higher

authority but to see that the operation of the

entire plant is immediately shut-down, the safety

device is urgently replenished and the plant does

not restart functioning until such replenishment

is completed.

(3) The Chief Inspector of Factories or any Senior

Inspector duly nominated by him, who has necessary

expertise in inspection of chemical factories,

will inspect the caustic chlorine plant at least

once in a week by paying surprise visit wihout any

previous intimation and examine whether the

recommendations of Manmohan Singh Committee and

Nilay Choudhary Committee are being complied with

by the management and whether the safety devices

or instruments installed by the management are

operative and are properly functioning or whether

there are any defects or deficiancies in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 25

operation and maintenance of the caustic chlorine

plant and in the safety devices or instruments

installedin the plant. The Chief Inspector of

Factories or the senior Inspector nominated by

him, who carries out such inspection, shall

immediately report to this Court and to the Labour

Commissioner any default, deficiency or remissness

on the part of the management which may be noticed

by him in the course of such inspection and on

such report being made, it will be open to the

Labour Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of

Factories to take such action as they think fit.

(4) The Central Board will also depute a senior

Inspector to visit the caustic chlorine plant and

the Vanaspati Plant atleast once in a week without

any prior notice to the management, for the

purpose of ascertaining whether the effluent

discharged from the Vanaspati Plant as also at the

terminal out-let complies with the limiting

standards laid down in the Consent Order issued

under the Water Act and the particulate matter

emitted by the stacks of the boilers in the power

plant complies

341

with the standards laid down in the Consent Order

issued under the Air Act and if there is any

default in complying with the relevant standards

in either case, such default shall be brought to

the notice of this Court and the Central Board

will be entitled to take such action as it think

fit, including revocation of the relevant Consent

Order.

(5) The management of Shriram will obtain an

undertaking from the Chairman and Managing

Director of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. which is

the owner of the various units of Shriram as also

from the officer or officers who are in actual

management of the caustic chlorine plant that in

case there is any escape of chlorine gas resulting

in death or injury to the workmen or to the people

living in the vicinity, they will be personally

responsible for payment of compensation for such

death or injury and such undertaking shall be

filed in Court within 1 week from today.

(6) There shall be a Committee of three

representatives of Lokahit Congress Union and

three representatives of Karamchari Ekta Union to

look after th safety arrangements in the caustic

chlorine plant. The function of this Committee

will be to ensure that all safety measures are

strictly observed and there is no non-functioning

or malfunctioning of the safety devices and

instrument and for this purpose, they will be

entitled to visit any section or department of the

plant during any shift and ask for any relevant

information from the management. If there is any

default or negligence in the observance of the

safety measures and the maintenance and operation

of the safety devices and instruements, this

Committee will be entitled to bring such default

or negligence to the notice of the management and

if the management does not heed to the same, this

Committee will be entitled to draw the attention

of the Labour Commissioner to such default or

negligence. The members of this Committee will be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 25

given proper and adequate training in regard to

the functioning of the caustic

342

chlorine plant and the operation of the safety

devices and instruments and this will be done

within a period of 2 weeks after the nomination of

three representatives on the Committee is

communicated by each of the two unions to the

management.

(7) There shall be placed in each department or

section of the caustic chlorine plant as also at

the gate of the premises a detailed chart in

English and Hindi stating the effects of chlorine

gas on human body and informing the workmen and

the people as to what immediate treatment should

be taken in case they are affected by leakage of

chlorine gas.

(8) Every worker in the caustic chlorine plant

should be properly trained and instructed in

regard to the functioning of the specific plant

and equipment in which he is working and he should

also be educated and informed as to what

precautions should be taken and in case of leakage

of chlorine gas, what steps should be taken to

control and contain such leakage. The most

effective way of giving such training and

instruction would be through audio-visual

programmes to be specially prepared by the

management. Even after proper training and

instruction is given it is likely that the workers

engaged in the plant may, on account of lapse of

time, forget the sequences of steps to be taken to

monitor, warn, avoid, control and handle any

chlorine leakage emergency and refresher courses

should therefore be conducted atleast once in 6

weeks with mock trials.

(9) Loud speakers shall be installed all around

the factory premises for giving timely warning and

adequate instructions to the people residing in

the vicinity in case of leakage of chlorine gas.

(10) The management shall maintain proper

vigilance with a view to ensuring that workers

working in the caustic chlorine plant wear helmets

gas masks or safety belts as the case may be while

working in

343

the hazardous departments or sections of the plant

and regular medical check-up of the workers shall

be got carried out by the management in order to

ensure that the workers are in good health.

(11) The management of Shriram will deposit in

this Court a sum of Rs. 20 lacs as and by way of

security for payment of compensation claims made

by or on behalf of the victims of olium gas, if

and to the extent to which such compensation

claims are held to be well founded. This amount

deposited by the management of Shriram will be

invested by the Registrar of this Court in fixed

deposit with a Nationalised Bank so that it earns

interests and it will abide further directions of

this Court. The management of Shriram will also

furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of

the Registrar of this Court for a sum of Rs.15

lacs which bank guarantee shall be encashed by the

Registrar, wholly or in part, in case there is any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 25

escape of chlorine gas within a period of three

years from today resulting in death or injury to

any workman or to any person or persons living in

the vicinity.The amount of the bank guarantee when

encashed shall be utilised in or towards payment

of compensation to the victims of chlorine gas,

the quantum of compensation being determinable by

the District Judge Delhi on applications for

compensation being made to him by the victims of

chlorine gas. The amount of Rs.20 lacs shall be

deposited and the bank guarantee for Rs.15 lacs

shall be furnished within a period of 2 weeks from

today and on failure of the management of Shriram

to do so, the permission granted by us this

Judgment to restart the caustic chlorine plant and

other plants shall stand withdrawn.

We have formulated these conditions with a view to

ensuring continuous compliance with the recommendations of

Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee and

strict observance of safety standards and procedures, so

that the possibility of hazard or risk to the workmen and

the community is almost reduced to nil. We would like to

point out

344

that the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram is not the only

plant which is carrying on a hazardous industry. There are

many other plants in Delhi which are employing hazardous

technology or are engaged in manufacture of hazardous goods

and if proper and adequate precautions are not taken, they

too are likely to endanger the life and health of the

community. We would therefore suggest that a High Powered

Authority should be set up by the government of India in

consultation with the Central Board for overseeing

functioning of hazardous industries with a view to ensuring

that there are no defects or deficiencies in the design,

structure or quality of their plant and machinery, there is

no negligence in maintenance and operation of the plant and

equipment and necessary safety devices and instruments are

installed and are in operation and proper and adequate

safety standards and procedures are strictly followed. This

is a question which needs serious attention of the

Government of India and we would request the Government of

India to take the necessary steps at the earliest, because

the problem of danger to the health and well-being of the

community on account of chemical and other hazardous

industries has become a pressing problem in modern

industrial society. It is also necessary to point out that

when science and technology are increasingly employed in

producing goods and services calculated to improve the

quality of life, there is a certain element of hazard or

risk inherent in the very use of science and technology and

it is not possible to totally eliminate such hazard or risk

altogether. We cannot possibly adopt a policy of not having

any Chemical or other hazardous industries merely because

they pose hazard or risk to the community. If such a policy

were adopted, it would mean the end of all progress and

development. Such industries, even if hazardous have to be

set up since they are essential for economic development and

advancement of well-being of the people. We can only hope to

reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by

taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a

manner which would pose least risk of danger to the

community and maximising safety requirements in such

industries. We would therefore like to impress upon the

Government of India to evolve a national policy for location

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 25

of chemical and other hazardous industries in areas where

population is scarce and there is little hazard or risk to

the community, and when hazardous industries are located in

such areas, every care must be taken to see that large human

habi

345

tation does not grow around then. There should preferably be

a green belt of 1 to 5 k.m. width around such hazardous

industries.

There is also one other matter to which we should like

to draw the attention of the Government of India. We have

noticed that in the past few years there is an increasing

trend in the number of cases based on enviornmental

pollution and ecological destruction coming up before the

Courts. Many such cases concerning the material basis of

livelihood of millions of poor people and reaching this

Court by way of Public interest litigation. In most of these

cases there is need for neutral scientific expertise as an

essential input to inform judicial decision making. These

cases require expertise at a high level of scientific and

technical sophistication. We felt the need for such

expertise in this very case and we had to appoint several

expert committees to inform the court as to what measures

were required to be adopted by the Management of Shriram to

safeguard against the hazard or possibility of leaks,

explosion, pollution of air and water etc. and how many of

the safety devices against this hazard or possibility

existed in the plant and which of them, though necessary,

were not installed. We have great difficulty in finding out

independent expertes who would be able to advise the court

on these issues. Since there is at present no independent

and competent machinery to generate, gather and make

available the necessary scientific and technical

information, we had to make an effort on our own to identify

experts who would provide reliable scientific and technical

input necessary or the decision of the case and this was

obviously a difficult and by its very nature, unsatisfactory

exercise. It is therefore absolutely essential that there

should be an independent Centre with professionally

competent and public spirited experts to provide the needed

scientific and technological input. We would in the

circumstances urge upon the Government of India to set up an

Ecological Sciences Research Group consisting of

independent, professionally competent experts in different

branches of science and technology, who would act as an

information bank for the Court and the Government

Departments and generate new information according to the

particular requirements of the Court or the concerned

Government department. We would also suggest to the

Government of India that since cases involving issues of

enviornmental pollution,

346

ecological destruction and conflicts over natural resources

are increasingly coming up for adjudication and these cases

involve assessment and evolution of scientific and technical

data, it might be desirable to set up Environment Courts on

the regional basis with one professional Judge and two

experts drawn from the Ecological Sciences Research Group

keeping in view the nature of the case and the expertise

required for its adjudication. There would of-course be a

right of appeal to this Court from the decision of the

Enviornment Court.

We have in this judgment dealt only with the question

as to whether Shriram should be allowed to restart its

caustic chlorine plant and other plants manufacturing by-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 25

products and if so, subject to what conditions. There are

many other issues of seminal importance arising out of the

claims for compensation by victims of olium gas which have

to be considered by the Court. We have formulated these

issues and asked the petitioner and those supporting him in

W.P. 12739 of 1985 to file their written submissions on or

before 24th February, 1986 and Shriram to file their written

submissions on or before 28th February, 1986 so that we can

take up the hearing of the writ petitions on 3rd March 1986.

Before we part with this judgment we would like to

express our deep sense of appreciation for the bold

initiative taken by the petitioner in bringing this public

interest litigation before the Court. The petitioner has

rendered signal service to the community by bringing this

public interest litigation and he has produced before the

Court considerable material bearing on the issues arising in

the litigation. He has argued his case with great sincerety

and dedication and the people of Delhi must be grateful to

him for espousing such a public cause. There is no doubt in

our mind that but for this public interest litigation

brought by the petitioner, there would have been no

improvement in the design, structure and quality of the

machinery and equipment in the caustic chlorine plant nor

would any proper and adequate safety devices and instruments

have been installed nor would there have been any pressure

on the management to observe safety standards and procedures

and the possibility cannot be ruled out that perhaps some

day olium gas tragedy might have been repeated but this time

with chlorine gas which is admittedly more dangerous than

olium gas. Though lone and

347

single, he has fought a valiant battle against a giant

enterprise and achieved substantial success. We would

therefore as a token of our appreciation of the work done by

the petitioner direct that a sum of Rs. 10,000 be paid by

Shriram to the petitioner by way of costs.

S.R.

348