India is a country with its vast coastal area spanning almost 6000 km with more than one-fourth of the total population of the country settled in the coastal areas. Universally Coastal Pollution has emerged as an emerging problem, and the same is not different in India. The direct dumping of waste materials in the sea, discharge through marine outfalls, large volumes of untreated of semi-treated waste generated in various land-based sources/activities ultimately find way to the seas. The coastal waters directly receive the inland waters, by way of surface run-off and land-drainage, ladden with myriad of refuse materials – the rejects or 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. Given such severe damage that is occurring to the fragile coastal ecosystem. This article traces the legal developments in coastal zones in India with the help of the landmark judgment S. Jagannath v Union of India (1997) that sought to prevent the environmental damage by shrimp farms in coastal area, which inevitably resulted in some serious interventions for the protection of coastal area.
Coastal zones
The coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side ) upto 500 mteres from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL are called coastal regulation zone.
It was declared as per the notification dated 19th February 1991 under section 3(1) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Rule 5 (3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules 1986. There by imposing restrictions on industries, operations and processes in the CRZ. To further the actions for conservation of coastal region the Coastal Management Authority was established by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on November 26, 1998. The NCZMA mainly Coordinates the actions of the State Coastal Zone Management Authorities (SCZMAs) and the Union Territory Coastal Zone Management Authorities (UTCZMAs) and Examine proposals for changes to the classification of CRZ areas and Coastal Zone Management Plans and make recommendations to the Central Government in this regard. The important decision which resulted in the setting up of this authority is the Supreme Court decision in S. Jagannath v Union of India[1]
This is one of the earlier case in which the specific question regarding the impact of modernized industries in the coastal areas was being discussed.
Facts of the case
The case a of S. Jagannath V Union of India is a public interest litigation filed by Mr S Jagannath, Chairman of Gram Swaraj Movement, which is a voluntary organization working for the upliftment of the weaker section of the society.
The petitioner mainly sought the enforcement of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated Feb 19, 1991, issued by the Govt. of India, aimed to prevent, environment damage in ecologically fragile zones. The petitioner was concerned with the severe ecological impact of intensive and semi-intensive shrimp farming methods on the environment and the surrounding people and flora and fauna. The petition demanded the sought judicial and the. prevention of such pollution and sought judicial intervention in the said matter.
Issues involved
- Whether the semi-intensive and intensive methods of prawn farming were causing environmental harms in coastal areas?
- Whether the setting cup of prawn farms on a large scale in ecologically fragile areas amount to violation of Coastal Zone Regulation (CR2) notification of 1991?
- Whether Shrimp farming activities violated the fundamental rights of the local communities, including access to clean water and environmental sustainability.
- Whether Shrimp farms could be considered as industries” related to the waterfront or directly needing foreshore facilities”, allowing them to operate in coastal areas
Arguments of the petitioner
The petitioner argued that the modern – other than traditional – techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. According to him only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted and the setting up of shrimp farms on the coastal stretches upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is totally prohibited under Para 2 of the said notification.
Decision
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held in favour of the petitioner and held that the Intensive and Semi intensive shrimp farming practices in the Coastal region are potentially hazardous and they are likely to degrade marine and coastal ecology, making them incompatible with sustainable environmental poticies. The court issued numerous orders (directions) throughout the process of the Case and directed the respondent States to prohibit the Setting up of any industry or construction of any type on the area up to 500 metres from sea water at High Tide (as per the notification already issued by the Central Govt) .
While considering the question as to whether the Shrimp farming (intensive & Semi- intensive) falls under prohibited activities under the CRZ notifications -it was held that setting up of shrimp Culture farms within the prohibited areas under the CRZ areas cannot be permitted.
The court had directed NEERI to submit a report after proper inquiry. After analysing the Report, the Court invoked the principles of Polluter Pays & Precautionary principle and observed the need for mmediate restoration of land and water ecosystem with the cost of restoration born by Individuals and entrepreneurs. No activity of commercial coastal aquaculture to be undertaken even outside the 500m limit without proper Environment Impact Assesment (ΕΙΑ) and also held that the practice of converting agricultural land and land under salt production into aquacultural land infringes the fundamental rights of individual.
Regarding the industries being closed down, the Court ordered compliance with Labour Laws for providing adequate compensation to the employees.
Analysis and impact of the decision
The court’s ruling demonstrates the reality of how environmentally harmful actions continue even when warnings or regulations are in place to prevent them. The aforementioned case was crucial in drawing attention to the rise in marine pollution and the ensuing depletion of marine resources and need for maintaining ecological balance in coastal areas.
Large amounts of untreated or semi-treated waste produced by diverse land-based sources and activities eventually make their way to the seas, and the court observed the growing issue of marine pollution—the direct disposal of waste materials into the seas discharged through marine outfalls. The coastal waters directly receive the inland waters, by way of surface run-off and land-drainage, ladden with myriad of refuse materials – the rejects or wastes of the civilisation. Apart from inputs from rivers and effluent-outfalls,
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:
“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.”
The court in this case has found the multi dimernsional effects of coastal pollution- not only on the coastal land and water , or the people, but on the entire ecosystem surrounding it, including the flora and fauna. Here the court observed that the villagers have lost their access to potable water as the water tables have become alkaline due to the seepage of sea water from the prawn farms. Bask farms have been using ground water for nearly two years crop. The Managing Director confirmed this before the Expert team.”
Impact of shrimp farms to water bodies and migratory birds – According to Dr. Sanjeeva Raj, Pulicat lake has two bird sanctuaries namely Yedurapattu and Nelapattu. It is estimated that nearly 10-15 thousand of flamingoes and other rare birds visit the Pulicat lake for four months only for feeding all the way from Rann of Kutch. Other water birds like pelicans, Cormorants, Egrets and Herons breed at Nelapattu and feed at this Pulicat Take. At Yedurapattu, Painted Storks, Pelicans, and Open Bills also feed here. In 1993 it was estimated that there was 10000 to 15000 Flemingoes. By 1994 this has been reduced to less than 1000. The reason for this can be attributed to the effluent from prawn farms which kills the organisms on which the Flamingoes feed. The depletion of natural feed could have caused this reduction. ……….The Tamilnadu forest Department is establishing a third sanctuary in the southern tip of Pulicat lake. We were told that due to the noise of oil engines, bulldozers and other disturbances by the prawn farms many birds especially painted storks have deserted this lake Dr. Sanjeeva Raj also states that Pulicat is ecologically very sensitive and fragile.
Conclusion
This Case of S. Jagannath v Union of India is a landmark case in India as Union of India as far as the environment Jurisprudence is concerned. This case is specifically important due to the focus it brought on the issue of marine pollution and degradation of ecological fragile coastal zones due to commercial shrimp cultivation which was continuing amidst govt. notifications regulating such activities.
The issue of coastal pollution has not been completely address even today, despite having numerous legislative and judicial interventions. Still many new issues are being brought up before the court and the National Green Tribunal which shows the grim reality of the situation. It is high time that the authorities conduct a much more advanced study into the causes of such recurring polluting activities and find a real possible way forward.
[1] (1997) 2 SCC 87
Author: This Article is written by Maneesha Gopal, A final year LLB student at Government Law College Thiruvananthapuram
