Скачать или смотреть A P Pollution Control Board v M V Naidu 1999 Telugu

This video was created with the help of AI tools for scriptwriting and voiceover." or "All visuals in this video are AI-generated.


The case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Naidu (1999) is a seminal judgment by the Supreme Court of India that further elucidated the application of the Precautionary Principle in environmental law and strongly advocated for the necessity of scientific expertise in environmental adjudication. This case underscored the judiciary's commitment to protecting vital natural resources, especially drinking water sources, from industrial pollution.

1. Issue: Can a Polluting Industry be Allowed Near Water Reservoirs?
The central legal issue was: Whether a potentially polluting industry should be permitted to establish and operate in close proximity to critical drinking water reservoirs, and what environmental principles should guide such decisions. Specifically, it examined the balance between industrial development and the imperative to protect pristine water sources.

2. Facts: Vegetable Oil Factory Near Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar Lakes
The factual background revolved around a proposal to establish a potentially polluting industry in a sensitive ecological zone:

Proposed Industry: A company sought permission to set up a vegetable oil factory (Vanaspati unit).

Location: The proposed site for this factory was within a 10-kilometer radius of two vital lakes: Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar. These lakes are the primary sources of drinking water for a significant portion of the population of Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana).


3. Judgment: Upholding Precautionary Principle and Need for Expert Courts
The Supreme Court, overturning the High Court's decision, delivered a crucial judgment emphasizing environmental protection:

Protection of Drinking Water: The Court unequivocally declared that the protection of drinking water sources is paramount. It underscored that the right to clean drinking water is an inherent part of the fundamental "Right to Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, any activity that threatens this right must be restricted or prohibited.

Need for Expert Environmental Courts/Tribunals: A highly significant aspect of this judgment was the Supreme Court's strong advocacy for the establishment of specialized environmental courts or tribunals. The Court recognized that environmental disputes often involve complex scientific and technical questions that ordinary courts may not be equipped to handle effectively. It stressed the necessity of having bodies with scientific expertise to properly evaluate environmental impact assessments, pollution control technologies, and the long-term ecological consequences of industrial activities. This recommendation later played a role in the eventual establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010.

Upholding APPCB's Decision: Based on these principles, the Supreme Court upheld the APPCB's decision to deny the NOC, thereby preventing the establishment of the vegetable oil factory near the lakes. The Court found the APPCB's decision to be reasonable and consistent with environmental principles.

4. Significance: Advocacy for Scientific Expertise in Environmental Adjudication
The A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Naidu (1999) judgment holds immense significance:

Reinforced Precautionary Principle: It solidified the Precautionary Principle as a foundational element of environmental governance in India, particularly in decisions involving potential harm to vital resources like drinking water.

Prioritized Water Protection: It unequivocally prioritized the protection of drinking water sources over industrial development when there's a conflict, firmly linking clean water to the fundamental right to life.

Paved Way for Expert Bodies: Most notably, the judgment served as a crucial catalyst and provided strong judicial backing for the eventual establishment of specialized environmental courts/tribunals. This advocacy underscored the need for scientific expertise in environmental adjudication, recognizing that effective environmental protection requires more than just legal interpretation; it demands an understanding of ecological and scientific complexities. This paved the way for bodies like the NGT.

Empowered Pollution Control Boards: The ruling also empowered pollution control boards, affirming their authority to make scientifically informed decisions to protect the environment, even if those decisions restrict industrial growth.