# S. JAGANNATH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 9 S.C.R. 848
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-12-11
- **Bench:** Kuldip Singh, S. Saghir Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-jagannath-v-union-of-india-and-ors-15136
- **Pages:** 90

## Headnote

Environment (protection) Act, 1986: Sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 15.
Environment Protection Rules, 1989: Rule 5(3).
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 2(j) &
(k) and 25.
Fisheries Act, 1897:
Wild-life Protection Act, 1972 :
Forest conservation Act, 1980:
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989: Rule 2(j)
and 5.
Environmental /aw-Coastal Zone Regulation Notification-Restrictions imposed on prawn fanning in ecologically fragile coastal ureas-Writ in
public interest seeking directions for prohibiting prawn famiing in coastal
areas-Held setting up of shrimp culture fanns within the prohibited area
under Notification cannot be pennitted-Shrimp culture industry held neither
"directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities'-Distinction between conventional and modem method of shrimp fanning discussed-New method poses a serious threat to ecology-In view of damage
caused by acquaculture industry to ecology the fact of large scale potential of
foreign exchange held not relevant-Directions issued by Supreme
G Court-Constitution of Authority for protection of ecologically fragile coastal
areas-Direction to recover compensation from polluter;--Constitution of
Environment Protection Fund-Compensation to workers retrenched from
shrimp culture industries.
Environmental Law-Marine pollution-Sea
coast
and
H beaches--Degrading environment of-Duty to protecr-f'recautionary prin848
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1.
849
ciple and polluter pays principle-Implementation of
A
Environmental Law-Sustainable development.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 48-A and 51-A-Protection and improvement of environB
ment:--Duty of State-Negligence on the part of authorities responsible for
implementation of provisions-Deprecation of
Article 25~Seventh Schedule-List I Entry l~oastal Zone Regulation notification issued under Central Act-Held would prevail over the law C
made by legislatures of States.
In exercise of its power under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of
the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India issued Coastal Zone Regulation Notification
dated February 19, 1991, whereunder various restrictions were imposed on D
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Chairman,
Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the upliftment of the weaker sections of Society, filed a writ petition in public
interest under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions from this
Court for (i) stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn E
farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas' (ii) prohibition from nsing
the waste lands/wet lands for prawn farming and (iii) constitution of a
·national coastal management authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas.
Various States and Union Territories filed their replies to the writ
petitions. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the National Environ·
mental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) visited coastal
areas of various States to investigate whether the ecologically fragile area
F
was being environmentally degraded and submitted its two reports to this
Court. The Court further directed all the States and Union Territories not G
to give fresh licences or permission for setting up of any acqua-farm in
their respective territories till further orders. With a view to affording
opportnnity of hearing to acqua- farms this Court also directed the
Coastal States and Union Territories to issue notices to them. The report
submitted by Dr. K. Alagarswamy, Director, Central Institute of Brackish
water acqua-culture was also placed on record. This report highlights H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A various environmental and social problems created by coastal acqua-culture. It also discussed various types of technologies adopted by the acqna·
culture industries in India.
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (1) the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 191,438. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
S. JAGANNATH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DECEMBER 11, 1996
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Environment (protection) Act, 1986: Sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 15.
Environment Protection Rules, 1989: Rule 5(3).
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 2(j) &
(k) and 25.
Fisheries Act, 1897:
Wild-life Protection Act, 1972 :
Forest conservation Act, 1980:
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989: Rule 2(j)
and 5.
Environmental /aw-Coastal Zone Regulation Notification-Restrictions imposed on prawn fanning in ecologically fragile coastal ureas-Writ in
public interest seeking directions for prohibiting prawn famiing in coastal
areas-Held setting up of shrimp culture fanns within the prohibited area
under Notification cannot be pennitted-Shrimp culture industry held neither
"directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities'-Distinction between conventional and modem method of shrimp fanning discussed-New method poses a serious threat to ecology-In view of damage
caused by acquaculture industry to ecology the fact of large scale potential of
foreign exchange held not relevant-Directions issued by Supreme
G Court-Constitution of Authority for protection of ecologically fragile coastal
areas-Direction to recover compensation from polluter;--Constitution of
Environment Protection Fund-Compensation to workers retrenched from
shrimp culture industries.
Environmental Law-Marine pollution-Sea
coast
and
H beaches--Degrading environment of-Duty to protecr-f'recautionary prin848
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1.
849
ciple and polluter pays principle-Implementation of
A
Environmental Law-Sustainable development.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 48-A and 51-A-Protection and improvement of environB
ment:--Duty of State-Negligence on the part of authorities responsible for
implementation of provisions-Deprecation of
Article 25~Seventh Schedule-List I Entry l~oastal Zone Regulation notification issued under Central Act-Held would prevail over the law C
made by legislatures of States.
In exercise of its power under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of
the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India issued Coastal Zone Regulation Notification
dated February 19, 1991, whereunder various restrictions were imposed on D
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Chairman,
Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the upliftment of the weaker sections of Society, filed a writ petition in public
interest under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions from this
Court for (i) stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn E
farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas' (ii) prohibition from nsing
the waste lands/wet lands for prawn farming and (iii) constitution of a
·national coastal management authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas.
Various States and Union Territories filed their replies to the writ
petitions. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the National Environ·
mental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) visited coastal
areas of various States to investigate whether the ecologically fragile area
F
was being environmentally degraded and submitted its two reports to this
Court. The Court further directed all the States and Union Territories not G
to give fresh licences or permission for setting up of any acqua-farm in
their respective territories till further orders. With a view to affording
opportnnity of hearing to acqua- farms this Court also directed the
Coastal States and Union Territories to issue notices to them. The report
submitted by Dr. K. Alagarswamy, Director, Central Institute of Brackish
water acqua-culture was also placed on record. This report highlights H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A various environmental and social problems created by coastal acqua-culture. It also discussed various types of technologies adopted by the acqna·
culture industries in India.
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (1) the modern •
other than traditional • techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting
B and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. Therefore, only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp
farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted; (ii),
setting up of shrimp farms on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries,
creeks, rivers and backwaters upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line
C (HTL) and the line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is
totally prohibited under para 2 of the Coastal Zone Regulation notification; (iii) the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water
front" nor "directly needing foreshore facility" and as such is a prohibited
activity under Para 2(1) of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification; and
D
E
F
(iv) the shrimp culture farms are discharging highly polluting effiuent
which is "hazardous waste" without obtaining authorisation from the State
Pollution Control Board under Hazardous Waste (Management and Han·
dling) Rules, 1989.
On behalf of shrimp acqua-culture industry it was contended that
(i) a. shrimp farm is an industry which is directly related to water front
and cannot exist witliout fore-shore facilities; (ii) certain provisions of the
coastal acqua-culture legislations enacted by various States are not in
consonance with the Coastal Zone Regulation notification issued by the
Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection)
Act; and (iii) almost 100 percent of the produce is exported and as sncb
the industry bas a large potential to earn foreigl/ exchange.
Allowing the petition with costs, this Court
HELD : I. The purpose or the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to
G safeguard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast. The setting up
of modern shrimp acqua-culture farms right on the sea coast and con·
struction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous
and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the
aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The setting up of shrimp culture farms
H within the prohibited area under the CRZ Notification cannot be per·
,
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1.
851
milted. (876-C-E)
A
2. Para 2 (viii) of the CRZ Notification prohibits the bunding or
disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar constructions. A
bond is an embankment or dyke. A shrimp farm on the coastal area by
itself operates as a dyke of a pond as it leaves no area from draining of
the flood waters. The construction of the shrimp farms, therefore, violates B
clause (viii) of para 2 of CRZ Notification. (876-F-H]
3. An industry dependent on sea water cannot by itself is an industry
"directly related to water front" or "directly needing fore-shore facilities'.
The shrimp culture industry, therefore, cannot be permitted to be set op C
anywhere in the coastal regulation zone under the CRZ Notification.
(877-E-F)
4. That part of the shore which remains covered with water at the
High Tide and gets uncovered and become visible at the Low Tide is called
'foreshore'. It is not p9ssible to set a shrimp culture farm in the said area D
because it would completely submerge in water at the High Tide. It is,
therefore, obvious that foreshore facilities are neither directly nor indirectly needed in the setting up of shrimp farm. So far as 'water front' is
concerned it is no doubt correct that a shrimp farm may have some
relation to the water front in the sense that the farm is dependent on E
brackish water which can be drawn from the sea. But shrimp cultnre
farming has no relation or connection with the 'water front' thongh it bas
relation with brackish water which is available from various water-bodies
including sea. What is required is the "brackish water' and not the 'water
front'. The material on record shows that the shrimp ponds constructed
by the farms draw water from the sea by pipes, jerries etc. It is not the
'water front' which is needed by the industry. What is reqnired is the
brackish water which can be drawn from any source including sea and
carried to any distance by pipes etc. Therefore, the shrimJ! cnltnre indnstry
is neither 'directly related to water front' nor "directly needing foreshore
facilities'. [875-H; 876-A-C; 877-D)
5. The environmental impact of shrimp culture essentially depends on
the mode of culture adopted. There is a vast difference between the traditional methods and the new commercialised system. The traditional acquaculture, including shrimp, is unusually small-scale, using low inputs
F
G
and relies on natural tidal action for water exchange. It has no adverse H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A effect on the environment and ecology. The modern method, on the other
hand, is larger in scale and intensive or semi-intensive in nature. It is owned
and operated by commercial and often foreign· owned companies which
mainly export the shrimp. In intensive acquaculture, selected species are
bred using a dense stocking rate. To maintain the very crowded shrimp
B population and attain higher production efficiency, artificial feed, chemical
additives and antibiotics are used. The new trend of more intensified
shrimp framing in certain parts of the country ·without much control of
feeds, seeds and other inputs and water management practices • has
brought to the fore a serious threat to environment and ecology. Thus
traditional and improved traditional types of shrimp farm technologies are
C environmentally benign and pollution free. Other types of technologies •
extensive, modified extensive, semi intensive and intensive. create pollution
and have degrading effect on the environment and coastal ecology. Such
types of shrimp farms cannot be permitted to operate.
(858-H; 865-E-G; 858-H; 859-A; 924-C,D]
D
6. Sea coast and beaches are a gift of the nature to the mankind. The
aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be
maintained. Any activity which has the effect of degrading the environtnent
cannot be permitted. Mangrove forests constitute an important component
of coastal eco·system. They thri7e in tidle estuaries, salt marshes and
E muddy coast lines. Conversion of mangrove to shrimp farms significantly
reduces the natural production of wild capture shrimp as well as other
fisheries. [877·F·G; 920-A]
7. Alagarswamy report highlights various environmental and social
problems created by the Coastal Acquaculture. It is an authentic document
F relating to the functioning of shrimp culture industry in India. This report
highlights drinking water problem, salinisation and destruction of
mangrove by the shrimp culture industry. The increase of stocking den·
sities, heavy inputs of high energy feeds, use of drugs and chemicals result
in the discharge of highly polluted effiuent into the sea, creeks etc. and on
G the sea coast by the shrimp farms. It is, therefore, not possible to accede
to the contention that commercial shrimp farming has no adverse affect
on environment and coastal ecology. (878-A-B]
8. Two reports submitted by NEERI clearly indicate that due to
commercial acqua-culture farming, there is considerable degradation of
H the mangrove eco-systems, depletion of Casurina plantations, pollution of
-
)
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1.
853
potable waters, reduction in fish catch, and blockage of direct approach to A
the sea-shore. Agriculture lands and salt farms are being converted into
commercial acqua-culture farms. The ground water has got contaminated
due to seepage of impounded water from the acqua- culture farms. Highly
polluted effluents are discharged by the shrimp farms into the Sea and on
the sea-coast. [906-B-D)
9. Expert Committee Report on 'Impact of Shrimp Farms along the
Coast of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry"· (Suresh Committee) has also highlighted the impact of shrimp culture farming in various field viz. effiuent
pollution; salinisation; feed and wastes; fertilizers and therapeutants; loss
B
of mangroves and biodiversity; in pact on agriculture and denial of potable C
water. [906-D-G]
10. The United Nations Report entitled 'Some Ecological and Social
implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia' too gives the dismal
picture regarding polluted waters and depleted fisheries; and natnral
resonrce degradation as a result of shrimp farming. (920-D-F]
D
11. All the reports clearly indicate that the expansion of modern
shrimp ponds in the coastal areas has meant that local fishermen could
only reach the breach by trespassing at great risk on shrimp farms or by
taking a long detour. Local people have not only lost access to their fishing E
grounds and to their sources of riverine seafoods and seaweeds, but they
also have to relinquish social and recreational activities traditionally
taking place on the beaches. However, the right of the fishermen and
farmers living in the coastal areas to take their living by way of fishing and
farming cannot be denied to them. (921-E-G; 932-G)
F
12. On the basis of the assessment of socio-economic status of
acquaculture in a systematic manner the NEERI has concluded in its
Report that the damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. TI1e farm-raised production of shrimp is much lesser than G
the wild-caught production. Even if some of the shrimp culture farms
which are polluting the environment, are closed the production of shrimp
by environmentally friendly techniques would not be affected and there
may not be any loss to the economy specially in view of the finding that the
damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce.
While the production increases and export earnings of the industry are
well publicised, the socio-economic losses and environmental degradation
affecting the well-being of coastal population are hardly noticed.
(883-B-C; 933-G-H; 919-E]
B
13. Constitutional provisions contained in Articles 48-A and 51-A as
well as other statutory provisions mandate the State to protect and improve the environment. Legislations like Fisheries Act, 1897, Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972 and Forests Conservation Act, 1980 contain useful
provisions for environment protection and pollution control. UnfortunateC ly, the authorities responsible for the implementation of various statutory
provisions are wholly re-miss in the performance of their duties under the
said provisions. (928-D-E]
14. Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act provides punishment for contravention of the provisions of the said Act. The effiuents
D discharged by the commercial shrimp culture farms are covered by the
definition of Environmental pollutant, environmental pollution and hazardous substance. The effiuents discharged by the farms at various places
were in excess of the the prescribed standards. Unfortunately, no action is
being taken by the authorities under the Act. (926-B-D]
E
F
15. There is nothing on the record to show that the shrimp culture,
owners are even conscious of the statutory provisions which requires them
to obtain the necessary consent/authorisation from the concerned Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. (928-C-D]
16. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted by
Parliament under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII read with Article 253 of
the Constitution of India. The CRZ Notification having been issued under
the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the Law made
G by the legislati;res of the States. (929-A-B)
Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Fornm v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1996) 7
SC 375, referred to.
"
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, JT (1996) 2
H 196, cited.
>
S.JAGANNA1H V. U.0.1.
855
DIRECTIONS :
A
(a) The Central Government shall constitute an authority before
January 15, 1997 under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary to
protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, sea shore, water front and
other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the B
shrimp culture industry and the coastal States, Union Territories. The
authority shall be headed by a retired Judge of a High Court. Other members shall be appointed preferably with expertise in the field of acquaculture, pollution control and environment protection. The Central
Government shall confer on the said authority the power to issue directions C
under section 5 of the Act and for taking measures with respect to the
matiers referred to in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of subsection (2) of Section 3.
(b) The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall
implement "the Precautionary Principle" and "the Polluter Pays" Principles. D
(c) The Shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the
prohibition contained in para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp
culture ponds can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation
zone as defined in the CRZ Notification. This shall be applicable to all seas,
bays, esturies, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply E
to traditional and improve traditional types of technologies which are
practised in the coastal low lying areas.
(d) All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp
culture ponds operatinwset up in the coastal regulation zone as defined
under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said
area before March 31, 1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be
filed in this Court before April 15, 1997.
F
(e) The farmers who are operating traditional and improved traditional system of acquaculture may adopt improved technology for inG
creased production productivity and return with prior approval of the
"authority" constituted by this order.
(I) The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest
lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall not be used converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds.
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A'
(g) No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culB
ture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake
and Pullicat lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattue and
Ndapattu).
.
.
·
(h) Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter
shall be closed and demolished before 31, 1997. A compliance report in
this respect shall be filed in this Court by the authorities before April 15,
1997.
C
(i) Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may he set up/con-
, structcd outside the coastal , regulation zone as defined by the CRz
notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the
prior approval of the "authority" as constituted by this Court. Such in-
. dustries which are alre'i.dy o'perating, in the said ar~a~ shall obtain
D 'authorisation from the "Authority" before April 30, 1997 failing which the
Industry concerned shall stop functioning with effei:t from the said date.
Any acquacnlture activity including intensive and semi-Intensive which has
the effect_ of causing salinity of soil, or the drinking waier or wells and/or ·
by the nse of chemical reeds increases shrimp or prawn production with,
E , consequent increase in sedimentation which, on put-refraction is a potential health hazard, apart from causing situation turbidity of water courses
and estuaries with detrimental ;;;,plication on local fauna and flora shall
not be allowed by the aforesaid Authority •
••
•
>
.•·
~-
',,
. (j) Acquaculture industry/shrimp, culture industry/shrimp culture,
ponds which have been functionin~operating within the coastal regulation
zone as defined by the CRZ .Notification and within 1000 meter from
Chilka and Pulikat lakes shall be liable to compensate the affected person
on the basis of the 'polluter pays' principle •
. , .;
(k) The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after
G giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecol·
ogy/environment , in the affected .. areas and. shall· also identify the in·
dividuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall
assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The
authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from
H ' the poll'!ters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.O.L
857
shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise.
A
(I) The authority shall compute the c_ompensation under two heads
namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A statement showing the amount recovered from each polluter, the persons to
whom the compensation is to be payable shall be forwarded to the Collector/District Magistrate of the area concerned.
(m) Violation or non-compliance of the directions of this Court shall
attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
B
(n) The compensation recovered from the polluters shall be
deposited under a separate head called 'Environment Protection Fund' C
and shall be ntilised for compensating the affected persons as identified
by the authority and also for restoring the damaged environment.
( o) The authority, shall frame schemes for reversing the damage
caused to the ecology and environment by pollutions. The schemes so D
framed shall be execnted by the respective State Governments/Union Territory Government under the supervision of the Central Government.
(p) The workmen employed in the shrimp cultnre industries which
are to be closed in terms of this order, shall be deemed to have been
retrenched with effect from April, 30, 1997 provided they have been in E
continnous service for not less than one year in the industry concerned
before the said date. Accordingly, they shall be paid compensation as well
as six years' wages as additional compensation. The gratuity amonnt
payable to the workmen shall be paid in addition.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 561 of
1994.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
F
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, V.R. Reddy, Altaf Ahmad, Additional
Solicitor Generals, Ms. Indira Jai Singh, P.P. Malhotra, Kapil Sibal, H.N. G
Salve, Tapas Ray, Shiva Subramaniam, G.L. Sanghi, N. Santosh Hegde,
Jayant Das, V.N. Ganpule, Bhim Rao Naik, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seerua
Midha, K.R.R. Pillai, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anita Shenoy, Vijay· Panjwani,
Krishan Mahajan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Lahiri, Brij K.
Mishra, Ejaz Maqbool, V.B. Nadkarni, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin H
\
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R ..
>A Anam, H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, S.P. Lenka, Dilip Sinha, J.R. Das,
A.K. Mylsamy, V. Balachandran, K.R. Nambiar, M. Krishanappan, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam,
Asbok Bhan, B.K. Prasad, R.P. Srivastava, K.K. Mani, S. Srinivasan, C.
Srinivasan, (Mrs: A K. Verma and P.O. Tyagi) Adv. for M/s JBD & Co.,
B P.K. Manohar, Vivek Gambhir, Anil Kumar, S.M. Jadhav, D.M. Nargolkar,
C.S. Vaidyanathan, A Mariarputharn, Ajay Kapur, Mrs. Arona Mathur,
P.P. Singh, A. Subba Rao, D.S. Murthy,_ A.D.N. Rao, M.T. George, V.
Krishnamurthy, B. Kanta Rao, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. H. Wahi, E.M.S.
Anam, M.P. Vmod, S.V. Deshpandey, K.L. Taneja, P. Mahale, Rajesh,
Shantha Kumar, lnderjeet Roy, Raj Kumar Mehta, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Dhruv
. C Mehta,· A.M. Khanwilkar, D.N. Mishra, Umesh Bhagwat, G.B. Sathe,
Vmod Bhagat, MA Krishnamoorthy and C. V.S. Rao for the appearing
parties.
D
.E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. Shrimp (Prawn) Culture Industry is taking roots
in India. Since long the fishermen in India have been following the traditional rice/shrimp rotating acqua culture systelll. Rice is grown during part
of the year and shrimp and other fish species are cultured during the rest
of the year. However, during the last decade the traditional system which,
apart from producing rice, produced 140 kgs. of shrimp per hectare of land
began to' give way to more intensive methods of shrimp culture which
could produce thousands of kilograms per hectare. A large number of
private companies and multi-national corporations have started investing
in shrimp farms. In the last few years more than eighty thousand hectares ·
F of land have been converted to shrimp farming. India's Marine export
weighed in at 70,000 tonnes in 1993 and these exports are projected to
reach 200 thousand tonnes by the year 2000. The shrimp farming advocates
regard acquaculture as potential savior of developing countries because it
is a short-duration crop that provides a high investment return and enjoys
G
an expanding market. The said expectation is sought to be achieved by
replacing the environmentally benign traditional mode of culture by semiintensive and intensive methods. More and more areas are being brought
under semi- intensive and intensive modes of shrimp farming. The environmental impact of shrimp culture essentially depends of the mode of culture
_,
adopted in the shrimp farming. Indeed, the new trend of more intensified
.. H shrimp farming in certain parts of the country - without much control of
S.JAGANNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.]
859
feeds, seeds and other inputs and water management practices
has A
brought to the fore a serious threat to the environment and ecology which
has been highlighted before us.
B
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India - in public
interest - has been filed by S. Jagannathan, Chairman, Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the upliftment of the weaker
section of society. The petitioner has sought the enforcement of Coastal
Zone Regulation Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the
Government of India, stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas, prohibition from
using the waste lands/wet lands for Prawn farming and the constitution of C
a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas. Various other prayers have been made in the writ petition.
This Court issued notice by the order dated October 3, 1994. On December
12, 1994, this Court passed the following order :-
"Ministry of Environment r.nd Forests, Govt. of India issued a
Notification dated February 19, 1991, under Clause (d) of Sub-rule
(3)of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 wherein
·15
it was declared that the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries,
creeks, rivers and backwater which are influenced by the tidal
action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide E
Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and
the HTL are Coastal Regulation zone. The Central Govt. has
imposed various restrictions in the said Notification. Mr. Mehta,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioners states that despite
the issue of the Notification unauthorised industries and other F
construction is being permitted by various States within the area
which has been declared as Coastal Regulation Zone. . .......... .
Meanwhile we direct all the respondent States not to permit the
setting up of any Industry or the construction of any type on the
area at least upto 500 metres from the sea water at the maximum
High Tide. The above said area i.e. from the High Tide Level upto G
500 metres shall be kept free from all construction of any type".
The Union of India and States/Union Territories of Gujarat, Maharashtra,
Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Goa, Pondicherry, Darnan/Deu,
Andaman/Nicobar and Lakshdeep have filed replies to the writ petitions. H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A This Court on March 27, 1995 passed the following order :-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"This Public Interest petition is directed against the setting up of
Prawn farms on the coastal area' of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
and other coastal States. It is alleged that the coastal States are
allowing big business houses to develop prawn farms on a large
scale in the Ecologically fragile coastal areas of the States concerned in the violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and
the rules framed thereunder and various other provisions of law.
It is also alleged that establishment of prawn farms on rural
cultivable lands is creating serious environmental, social and
economic problems for the rural people living along with the
coastal bed specially in the east coast... .... Meanwhile, we direct
NEER!, Nagpur through its Director to appoint an investigating
team to visit the coastal areas of the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Tamil Nadu and give its report to this Court regarding the various
farms which are being set up in the said area.
In case the investigating team finds that the ecologically fragile
area is being environmentally degraded then it shall suggest the
remedial measures in that respect. The NEER! team shall keep in
view the Notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and also the provision of the Tamil
Nadu Agriculture (Regulation) Act, 1995. The NEER! shall submit
its report before April 30, 1995".
Pursuant to the above quoted order, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) submitted its report dated April
25, 1995 before this Court. This Court further directed NEER! to send an
expert team to the coastal areas in other States and file its report within
two months, the report was filed in this Court within the specified time.
This Court on May 9, 1995 passed the following order :-
"This matter be listed for final hearing on 4th August, 1995.
Meanwhile we direct that no part of agricultural lands and salt
farw be converted into commercial aquaculture farms hereinafter.
We further direct that no ground water withdrawal, be allowed for
aquaculture purposes to any of the industries whether already
existing or in the process of being set up. No further shrimp farms
-
"
.\
....
·. ·. \\
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.]
861
or any acquaculture farms be permitted to be set up in the areas A
in dispute hereinafter.
We direct the respective State Governments (the C '!.:\or
concerned or any other Officer appointed by the Governm1
to
provide free access through acquaculture units to the sea c.
·o
the fishermen/tourists after hearing the parties concerned.
Mr. Mehta has contended that due to these farms occ1
the most of the coastal areas it has become difficult for the vill..~-.o
to search for fresh water, the State Govt may examine this aspect
and provide water by way of tankers wherever it is necessary.
So far as the farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu are concerned
they are all represented through Mr. Kapil Sibal and his team. We
direct the State of AP. to send a copy or the order of this Court
to all the acquaculture farms in the State of AP. informing them
B
c
that the matter shall be taken up by this Court for final hearing on D
4th August, 1995. This may be done by the State of AP. by the
end of June, 1995.
We direct the Pondicherry Administration to send a copy of
the order of this Court to all the aquaculture farms in Pondicherry
informing them that the matter shall be taken up by this Court for
final hearing on 4th August, 1995. This may be done by the
Pondicherry Admn. by the end of June 1995.
We further direct the Superintendent c.f Police and the Collector of the areas concerned to see that the order of this Court
specially the directions given are meticulously complied with by all
the farms."
Before finally hearing this matter, this Court passed the following order on
August 24, 1995 :-
I
E
F
"We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to G
have full representation before us so far individual aqua-farms in
various States/Union Territories are concerned. We, therefore,
adjourn the hearing to October 17, 1995. Meanwhile, we direct the
coastal States/Union Territory Governments, through their learned
counsel who are present in the Court, to issue individual notices H
A
B
c
D
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
to all the aqua-farms which are located in their respective territories. It may be stated in the notices that the same are being
issued under the direction of this Court. It should also be specifically mentioned that if they want to be heard in these matters by
this Court, they be present through their counseVrepresentatives
in the Court, on the next date of hearing, which is October 17,
1995. We also direct the Marine Products Export Development
Authority (MPEDA), through its counsel Mr. Harish N. Salve, to
do the same exercise at its level also. Apart from that, we further
direct all the State Governments/Union Territories to issue public
notices in this respect in daily newspapers which have circulation
in the coastal areas, informing the aqua-farms regarding the hearing of these matters in this Court, on October 17, 1995. This may
be done on two consecutive days.
Notices and publication be completed within 3 weeks from
today. Meanwhile, we direct all the State Governments/Union
Territories not to give fresh licences/permission for setting up/establishment of any aqua-farm in their respective Territories till
further orders."
Coastal Pollution, universally, is an emerging problem. So far as India
E is concerned it has already become a serious environmental problem.
Besides direct dumping of waste materials in the seas discharge through
marine outfalls, large volumes of untreated or semi-treated wastes
generated in various land-based sources/activities ultimately find way to the
seas. The coastal waters directly receive the inland waters, by way of
F
surface run- off and land-drainage, ladden with myriad of refuse materials
- the rejects of wastes of the civilisation. Apart from inputs from rivers and
effluent-outfalls, the coastal areas are subject to intensive fishing, navigational activities, recreations, ports, industrial discharge and harbours which
are causative factors of water quality degradation to varying degrees.
Contrary to the open sea, the changes in the quality of coastal waters, are
G much greater due to river discharges under tidal conditions.
With noticeable increase in marine polb,1tion and the consequential
decline in marine resources, serious concern was expressed in the United
Nations' Conference on Human Environments in Stockhohn (1972) attractH ing global attention towards the urgent need of identifying the critically
;
S.JAGANNATif v. U.0.1. (KULDIPSINGH,J.]
863
polluted areas of the marine environments, specially in coastal waters, for A
urgent remedial actions. The Conference unanimously resolved that the
littoral States should take early action at their National level for assessment
and control of marine pollution from all sources and carry out systematic.
monitoring to ascertain the efficacy of the pollution regulatory actions
taken by them. In the background of the Stockholm Conference and in view B
of 1982 Convention on the "Law of the Sea" defining jurisdiction of territorial waters, a model comprehensive Action Plan has been evolved under
the United Nations' Environment Programme (UNEP). Keeping with the
international commitments and in greater National interest, the Government of India and the Governments of the coastal States are under a legal
obligation to control marine pollution and protect the coastal- environC
ments.
According to the facts placed on record by the Central Pollution
Control Board (the Board, the coastline of India's mainland is about 6000
km long. Out of the total landmass of about 3.28 million sq. kms nearly D
0.15 million sq. kms of coastal land-belt (considering 25 km landward
distance) girdles three sides of the country's sea front which in turn
underlays about 0.13 million sq. km sea-bed upto the territorial limit. The
country being riverine, has 14 major, 44 medium and 55 minor rivers which
discharge annually about 1566 thousand million cubic meters of water E
through land drainage into the seas transporting a wide range of pollutants
generated by land-based activities. Nine out of fourteen major rivers meet
the sea in the east coast (Brahmaputra through Bangladesh) and the
remaining five in the west coast (Indus through Pakistan).
Besides land drainage, there are large number of marine coastal
outfalls discharging directly or indirectly industrial and municipal effluents
F
into the seas. Uncontrolled disposal of land- based waste into the seas,
through rivers and effluent outfalls, is a major cause of pollution of coastal
waters. There are nine coastal States and one Union Territory (UT) in G
India namely, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Pondicherry (UT), Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. More than
one-fourth of the total population of the country is settled in the coastal
areas. The Board in its report regarding "Pollution Potential of Industries
in Coastal Areas of India' dated November, 1995 gives the following data
regarding aquaculture farms :
H
864
A
B
I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
"The effluent generation from aquaculture farms in the east coast
only, in absence of data on west coast farms, is to the tune of 2.37
million cubic meters per day, out of which Andhra Pradesh has
the lion share of about 2.12 million cubic meters per day .... It may
be noted that in all the States, in most cases, the effluent discharge
is indirect (through estuaries, creeks, canals, harbours). It may also
be noteworthy that the effluents from aquaculture farms are discharged directly/indirectly into the coastal waters practically
without any treatment. For disposal of solid waste, on the other
hand, open dumping and land filling is a common practice."
C In marine pollution control utmost importance has to be given to the
beaches. The beaches and other areas of special interest are to be maintained aesthetically and at permissible levels of energetic bacteria. Protection of ecologically sensitive areas and land used interface resource areas
is equally important. The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of
D
Water Pollution (Central Board) in its report "coastal pollution control
series COPOCS/l/1982" recommended as under :-
E
F
G
" - the mangrove forest at Pichavaram, the bird sanctuary and forest
areas at Point Calimere and Coral reef at Mandapam are ecologically sensitive areas warranting special watch and preservation.
- recreational coastal portions of some sectors of the stretch under
investigation such as Marine and Elliot beaches at Madras,
Mahabalipurarn, Pondicherry beach at Pondicherry and. Poompuhar at the confluence of the river Cauvery with the sea are to
be maintained at appropriate quality level.
- Continuous monitoring of the coastal waters especially heavy
metals and pesticides in the biota should be carried out to detect
possible biomagnification of some toxic chemicals and to provide
early warning."
The Central Board in its report "Coastal Pollution Control Series
COPOCS/5/1986-81'' sought protection of the ecologically fragile areas in
the following term• :-
"The mangrove forest and the wildlife sanctuary in Coringa Island,
H
the Pulicat lake and the bird sanctuary at Nelapattu are the
r:
S.JAGANNATH v. U.O.l. (KULDIPSINGH,J.]
865
ecologically sensitive areas warranting special attention and A
protection.