Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case challenging the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for the development of a greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa, the Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ directed Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to revisit the conditions subject to which it granted its EC within a month.

Appraisal by the EAC

The Court explained ‘Appraisal by the EAC’ as structured and defined by the 2006 notification. It said that the process of appraisal is defined to mean “a detailed scrutiny” by the EAC of the application and other documents like the EIA report and the outcome of the public consultation, including the public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority for the grant of an EC. The EAC is under a mandate to conduct the process of appraisal in “a transparent manner”. On the conclusion of these proceedings, the EAC has to make “categorical recommendations” to the regulatory authority. The recommendations made by the EAC to the regulatory authority must be based on “reasons”. Considering this, the Court noticed,

“That the project proponent must submit all information and data without concealing relevant features is a basic hypothesis and expectation of the 2006 notification. The EAC has, in the brief reasons which are contained in para 3.1.2, not applied its mind at all to the environmental concerns raised in relation to the project nor do its reasons indicate an appraisal of those concerns by evaluating the impact of the project.”

Hence, the Court said the appraisal by the EAC in the present case neither the process of decision making nor the decision itself can pass legal muster.

Failure of due process

On EAC:

“The EAC, as an expert body abdicated its role and function by taking into account circumstances which were extraneous to the exercise of its power and failed to notice facets of the environment that were crucial to its decision making. The 2006 notification postulates that normally, the MoEFCC would accept the recommendation of the EAC. This makes the role of the EAC even more significant.”

On NGT:

“The NGT is an adjudicatory body which is vested with appellate jurisdiction over the grant of an EC. The NGT dealt with the submissions which were urged before it in essentially one PART J 90 paragraph. It failed to comprehend the true nature of its role and power under Section 1(h) and Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010. In failing to carry out a merits review, the NGT has not discharged an adjudicatory function which properly belongs to it.”

Directions

  • Until the EAC carries out the fresh exercise as directed above, the EC granted by the MoEFCC on 28 October 2015 shall remain suspended;
  • Upon reconsidering the matter in terms of the present directions, the EAC, if it allows the construction to proceed will impose such additional conditions which in its expert view will adequately protect the concerns about the terrestrial eco systems noticed in this judgment. The EAC would be at liberty to lay down PART K appropriate conditions concerning air, water, noise, land, biological and socioeconomic environment;
  • The EAC shall have due regard to the assurance furnished by the concessionaire to this Court that it is willing to adopt and implement necessary safeguards bearing in mind international best practices governing greenfield airports;
  • State of Goa as the project proponent and the MoEFCC, as the case may be, has the liberty to file the report of the EAC before this Court in the form of a Miscellaneous Application so as to facilitate the passing of appropriate orders in the proceedings; and
  • No other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the report that is to be submitted before this Court by the EAC in compliance with the present order.

[Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 441, decided on 29.03.2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ has refused to allow reopening of Vedanta’s Sterlite plant in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin, which was at the centre of massive protests over pollution concerns. It, however, granted the company liberty to approach the Madras High Court.

The Vedanta group was, hence, seeking a direction to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to implement the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order which had set aside the government’s decision to close the plant. The state had, however, moved the Supreme Court, saying the NGT had “erroneously” set aside various orders passed by the TNPCB last year with regard to the Sterlite plant. It had said the tribunal had consequentially directed the TNPCB to pass fresh orders of renewal of consent and issue authorisation to handle hazardous substances to Vedanta Limited.

The bench allowed Tamil Nadu’s appeal against the NGT order on grounds of maintainability and said the tribunal has no jurisdiction to order reopening of the plant. It said:

“If an appellate authority is either not yet constituted, or not properly constituted, a leapfrog appeal to the NGT cannot be countenanced. As has been held by us supra, the NGT is only conferred appellate jurisdiction from an order passed in exercise of first appeal. Where there is no such order, the NGT has no jurisdiction.”

The Court, hence, held that since an appeal was pending before the appellate authority when the NGT set aside the original order dated 09.04.2018, the NGT’s order being clearly outside its statutory powers conferred by the Water Act, the Air Act, and the NGT Act, would be an order passed without jurisdiction.

The Court, however, directed that it will be open for the respondents to file a writ petition in the High Court against all the aforesaid orders. It added:

“If such writ petition is filed, it will be open for the respondent to apply for interim reliefs considering that their plant has been shut down since 09.04.2018. Also, since their plant has been so shut down for a long period, and they are exporting a product which is an important import substitute, the respondent may apply to the Chief Justice of the High Court for expeditious hearing of the writ petition, which will be disposed of on merits notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy in the case of challenge to the 09.04.2018 order of the TNPCB.”

Background of the case:

  • At least 13 people were killed and several injured on May 22 last year when police had opened fire on a huge crowd of people protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory.
  • The Tamil Nadu government had, on May 28, ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently” close the mining group’s copper plant following violent protests over pollution concerns.
  • On December 15, the NGT had set aside the state government’s order for closure of the Sterlite copper plant, saying it was “non sustainable” and “unjustified”.

[Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 221, decided on 18.02.2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. and Rajiv Sharma, ACJ., gave directions as to the use and sale of plastic in the State.

The Court took judicial notice of the news item published in daily edition of ‘Hindustan’ newspaper wherein it was stated as to how polythene was damaging the ecology of the environment and consequently it expressed its concern over the havoc created by plastic and demanded the authorities to contribute towards sweeping away the damages caused by the plastic from the State. It was observed that “Polythene is polluting the fragile environment and ecology of the State of Uttarakhand. It has also now entered into the river system and drainage system. It has reduced the fertility of the land. The stray cattle are also consuming polythene, causing grave harm to their health.”

Accordingly, the respondent was directed to apprise the Court about the implementation of the directions issued by it along with the initiative undertaken by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand to eradicate the polythene menace. Also, the District Magistrates throughout the State were directed to launch special initiative to check the sale and use of polythene. [Ban on the use of polythene in Uttarakhand, In re, WP(PIL) No. 132 of 2018, order dated 07-09-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ directed the National Highways Authority Of India (NHAI) to ensure that the newly constructed Eastern Expressway, which is aimed at decongesting Delhi, is thrown open to public from June 1 even if the Prime Minister cannot inaugurate it by then/ The Bench said that “any delay will not be in interest of people.”

NHAI had told the Court that the expressway was scheduled to be inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 29 but it could not be done due to his prior commitments. The Bench took exception to the 135-km Expressway, which envisages signal-free connectivity between Ghaziabad, Faridabad, Gautam Budh Nagar (Greater Noida) and Palwal, not being thrown open to the public despite being informed earlier that it would be inaugurated by April 20.

The Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressways were planned in 2006 following Supreme Court’s order to build a ring road outside the national capital for channelling non-Delhi bound traffic. The Supreme Court had asked the Centre in 2005 to build a peripheral expressway around Delhi by July 2016 to decongest and “de-pollute” the national capital.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Showing dismay over large-scale illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in the State of Goa, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ issued several directions to ensure implementation of mining related environment protection laws and said:

“For the State to generate adequate revenue through the mining sector and yet have sustainable and equitable development, the implementation machinery needs a tremendous amount of strengthening while the law enforcement machinery needs strict vigilance. Unless the two marry, we will continue to be mute witnesses to the plunder of our natural resources and left wondering how to retrieve an irretrievable situation.”

Clarifying the directions issued by the Court in Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, on 21st April 2014, the Bench said that as per the said decision, the State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with law and not second renewals to the mining lease holders. Also, the State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitive bidding or auction.

The Court noticed:

“The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and ignoring available relevant material and therefore, not in the interests of mineral development. The decision was taken only to augment the revenues of the State which is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act.”

The Bench also clarified that the Ministry of Environment and Forest was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14th September, 2012.

Hence, the Court set aside the second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and issued the following directions:

  • The mining lease holders who have been granted the second renewal in violation of the decision and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation are given time to manage their affairs and may continue their mining operations till 15th March, 2018. However, they are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from 16th March, 2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.
  • The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Ministry of Environment and Forest should also take all necessary steps to grant fresh environmental clearances to those who are successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The exercise should be completed by the State of Goa and the Ministry of Environment and Forest as early as reasonably practicable.
  • The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Special Investigation Team and the team of Chartered Accountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014 give their report at the earliest and the State of Goa should implement the reports at the earliest, unless there are very good reasons for rejecting them.
  • The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expedite recovery of the amounts said to be due from the mining lease holders pursuant to the show cause notices issued to them and pursuant to other reports available with the State of Goa including the report of Special Investigation Team and the team of Chartered Accountants.

In Goa Foundation case, it was held that all the iron ore and manganese ore leases had expired on 22nd November, 2007 and hence, any mining operation carried out by the mining lease holders after that date was illegal. It was also held that all the mining lease holders had enjoyed a first deemed renewal of the mining lease and for a second renewal an express order was required to be passed in view of and in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. [Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 98, decided on 07.02.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the issue relating to demolition of the parking lot, being constructed near the eastern gate of Taj Mahal, the Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Court that he will file the comprehensive policy with regard to the entire issue of pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and the nearby areas within two weeks.

The bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta had earlier on 24.10.2017, ordered demolition of the parking lot, being constructed near the eastern gate of Taj Mahal while hearing the petition filed by environmentalist M C Mehta, who has been monitoring development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal from the ill effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area.

On 25.10.2017, Uttar Pradesh State’s counsel Aishwarya Bhati told the bench headed by J. Chelameswar, J that she could not appear before the court on 24.10.2017 when the matter was called up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur, due to which the demolition order was passed. The Court hence, agreed to hear the restoration plea.

The matter will now be heard on 15.11.2017. Status quo will be maintained till then. [MC Mehta v Ministry of Environment and Forests,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1280, order dated 27.10.2017]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court agreed to hear the Uttar Pradesh government’s restoration plea against its order to demolish a multi-level car parking facility being built within a kilometer of the Taj Mahal. The hearing will take place on October 27, 2017.

State’s counsel Aishwarya Bhati told the bench headed by J. Chelameswar, J that she could not appear before the court yesterday when the matter was called up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur, due to which the demolition order was passed.

The Court had, on 24.10.2017, ordered demolition of the parking lot, being constructed near the eastern gate of Taj Mahal while hearing the petition filed by environmentalist M C Mehta, has been monitoring development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal from the ill effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area.

Source: PTI

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Madan B lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ directed the Executive in all the States to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months, considering the institutional requirements of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and the law laid down in the Statutes, by this Court and as per the reports of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are appointed to the SPCBs.

The Court was hearing the appeal against the decision of the National Green Tribunal where it was held that the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members or chairpersons of such high powered and specialized statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve their appointment or nomination. The Court, agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal, set aside the order as the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs.

The Court referred to a number of recommendations of various committees, the laws laid down in various Statutes and Judgements and said:

“All these suggestions and recommendations are more than enough for making expert and professional appointments to the SPCBs being geared towards establishing a professional body with multifarious tasks intended to preserve and protect the environment and consisting of experts. Any contrary view or compromise in the appointments would render the exercise undertaken by all these committees completely irrelevant and redundant.”

The Court, noticing that notwithstanding all these suggestions, recommendations and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by persons who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or professional experience to address the issues for which the SPCBs were established by law, said that the concern is not one of a lack of professional expertise, but the lack of dedication and willingness to take advantage of the resources available. It further said:

“With this couldn’t-care-less attitude, the environment and public trust are the immediate casualties.”

The Court said that any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or at least long-lasting and

“unless corrective measures are taken at the earliest, the State Governments should not be surprised if petitions are filed against the State for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs.”

The Court left it open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such. [Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1165 , decided on 22.09.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Considering the necessity to give precedence to the health of the people in Delhi and in the NCR over any commercial or other interest, the bench of Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ issued elaborate directions and  said that keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the human right to breathe clean air and the human right to health, the Central  Government and other authorities should consider encouraging display fireworks through community participation rather than individual bursting of fireworks.

The directions issued by the Court are as follows:

  • The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates will ensure that fireworks are not burst in silence zones that is, an area at least 100 meters away from hospitals, nursing homes, primary and district health-care centres, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area that may be declared as a silence zone by the concerned authorities.
  • The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary licences by about 50% of the number of licences granted in 2016. The number of temporary licences should be capped at 500.
  • The Union of India will update and revise and ensure strict compliance with the Notification dated 27th January, 1992 regarding the ban on import of fireworks.
  • The Department of Education of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through the school staff, volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate school children on the health hazards and ill-effects of breathing polluted air, including air that is polluted due to fireworks. School children should be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities.
  • Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur, potassium and barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the composition already approved by Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) is maintained. However, the use of compounds of antimony, lithium, mercury, arsenic and lead in the manufacture of fireworks as well as the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of fireworks is prohibited.
  • 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough for Dussehra and Diwali in 2017, hence, transport of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR from outside the region is prohibited and the concerned law enforcement authorities will ensure that there is no further entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders. The permanent licensees are at liberty to take measures to transport the stocks outside Delhi and the NCR.
  • The suspension of permanent licences as directed by the order dated 11th November, 2016 is lifted for the time being. However, the suspension might be reviewed after Diwali depending on the ambient air quality post Diwali.
  • Research study must be jointly carried out by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Fireworks Development Research Centre (FDRC) laying down appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the bursting of fireworks and the release of their constituents in the air. Also, a research study needs to be conducted on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra and Diwali on the health of the people.

The Court appointed a Committee to be chaired by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of officers at the appropriate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control Boards, the Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit a report in this regard preferably on or before 31st December, 2017. [Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1071, decided on 12.09.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Concerned over a mining scandal of enormous proportions involving megabucks in the State of Odisha, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ said that though the Court cannot lay down limits on the extent of mining activities that should be permitted by the State of Odisha or by the Union of India, this is an aspect that needs serious consideration by the policy and decision makers in our country in the governance structure. The Court hence, directed the Union of India to revisit the National Mineral Policy, 2008 and announce a fresh and more effective, meaningful and implementable policy within the next few months and in any event before 31st December, 2017.

Taking note of the indiscriminate mining operations in Odisha, the Court said there is no effective check on mining operations nor is there any effective mining policy. Regarding the National Mineral Policy, 2008, the Court said that the same seems to be only on paper and is not being enforced perhaps due to the involvement of very powerful vested interests or a failure of nerve. The Court also said that the Policy was almost a decade old and the variety of changes that have taken place since then, including the advent of rapacious mining in several parts of the country, it was necessary that a new updated Policy was brought in.

Directing the constitution of an Expert Committee under the guidance of a retired Supreme Court judge for identifying the lapses that have occurred over the years enabling rampant illegal or unlawful mining in Odisha and measures to prevent this from happening in other parts of the country, the Court said that undoubtedly, there have been very serious lapses that have enabled large scale mining activities to be carried out without forest clearance or environment clearance and eventually the persons responsible for this will need to be booked but as mentioned above, the violation of the laws and policy need to be prevented in other parts of the country. The rule of law needs to be established.

The Court issued the above directions in the light of the rapaciously mining of iron ore and manganese in the districts of Keonjhar, Sundergarh and Mayurbhanj in Odisha that has apparently destroyed the environment and forests and has caused untold misery to the tribals in the area. [Common Cause v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 857, decided on 02.08.2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Explaining the reasons for the order dated 29.03.2017, where it was directed that on and from 1st April, 2017 such vehicles that are not BS-IV compliant shall not be sold or registered in India by any manufacturer or dealer, the Court said that considering the life of such vehicles ranges from 10 to 15 years, the concern is not only for the present population of the country but for future generations who also have an entitlement to breathe pollution free air. This is what sustainable development and inter-generational equity is all about.

Rejecting the argument that every Notification issued by the Government in relation to prohibition of sale of any vehicle not complying with BS-IV Emission norms over the course of years should be interpreted literally, the Court said that if the entire scheme laid out by the Government – of discouraging the manufacture of polluting vehicles and gradually phasing them out coupled with their gradual replacement with fuel efficient vehicles, availability of cleaner and greener fuel and compliance with fuel emission norms is appreciated in a much larger context rather than on a notification by notification basis – the objective behind the scheme would be apparent. The Court said that the Government could very well have issued one single notification way back in 2010 that with effect from 1st April, 2017 but it did not do so to enable all concerned, particularly the auto industry and marketing strategists to gradually manage their affairs rather than subject them to a sudden future shock. The scheme of a gradual phase-out is now sought to be perverted through a literal interpretation of each notification, unfortunately, for a commercial benefit rather than being appreciated in a larger canvas for the benefit of society as a whole.

Lashing out at the interveners, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ said that rather than admit responsibility for a lack of concern of public health issues, some of the interveners have sought to blame Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) for its failure to approach the Government of India to seek amendments to the notifications issued from time to time and to incorporate a prohibition on the sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles on or after 1st April, 2017. It was noticed that the EPCA had convened a meeting of all stakeholders on 19th October, 2016 and had brought to the notice of the representatives of SIAM that there would be no sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles from 1st April, 2017 and that this should be communicated to all manufacturers in order to give sufficient notice of almost six months to enable the automobile industry to plan its production and sale and take pro-active steps to significantly decrease the production of such vehicles. Therefore, to blame EPCA for their problems is rather unfair of the interveners.

The Court said that it is time to realize that a collective effort is needed to clear up the air. In this process, the interveners have a huge role and they should now wake up to their responsibility for the benefit of all. [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 394, decided on 13.04.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Hearing a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Ministry of Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi to take steps under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other relevant Acts to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale and purchase of manja/nylon kite thread and similar synthetic threads used in kite flying, the Court directed the Government to issues advisories within 3 days from the date of order to make the public aware of the fatal effects of such razor sharp threads.

The petitioner contended that  the thread used for flying of kites which is made of nylon or synthetic material and other toxic materials, often referred to as “Chinese manja” though it has nothing to do

with China, being razor sharp is very dangerous and capable of causing severe injuries to birds and humans and that the present case fell within the ambit of Rule 4(5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and therefore prohibitory orders be issued by the Government without inviting objections from public.

The Standing Counsel Mr Rahul Mehra submitted that a proposed draft notification in relation to imposing a complete ban on sale, production, storage, supply and use of nylon, plastic and Chinese manja and other kite-flying thread that is sharp or made sharp such as being laced with glass, metal or other sharp objects in National Capital Territory of Delhi was ready and the same had been forwarded to the Law Department, Government of NCT of Delhi for vetting. Since the notification cannot be issued immediately, advisories may be issued to create awareness among the public.

Though the petitioner had brought to the Court’s notice a few incidents based on newspaper reports, the Court was of the view that more material and adequate data was required to be collected and evaluated, and opportunity be given to raise objections, before prohibiting or restricting the handling of hazardous substances in accordance with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Disposing of the petition, the Court issued the following directions:

  • Office of the Divisional Commissioners/ Directorate of Information & Publicity and all the Municipal Corporations shall issue advisories within 3 days from today through various modes to make the public aware of the fatal effects of use of razor sharp thread/manja made of nylon/plastic/synthetic using glass/metal and/or other toxic materials.
  • Steps be taken by the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure that advisories are issued by all concerned authorities in terms of the above direction so as to prevent any untoward incidents in Delhi.
  • Government of NCT of Delhi is directed to expedite the process of inviting suggestions or objections from the general public and thereafter to issue the notification following the procedure laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, to tackle the adverse effects of razor sharp kite flying threads on humans as well as other living creatures as expeditiously as possible.

[Zulfiquar Hussain  v.  Government of NCT of Delhi2016 SCC OnLine Del 4488, decided on August 10, 2016]