SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal, Ruma Pal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

I.A. Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 in W.P. (C) No. 537 of 1992 with W.P. (C) No. 725 of 1994 (News Item "Hindustan Times" A.Q.F.M. Yamuna vs Central Pollution Control Board and Anr.) with I.A. Nos. 20 and 21 in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and Ors.) (Re: Construction of STP in Delhi/New Delhi) with I.A. No., 1207 in I.A. No. 45 in I.A. No. 22 'in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985, I.A. Nos. 1183, 1216, 1251 in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and Ors.) (Re: Common Effluent Treatment Plant). D/d. 10.4.2001.

Comdr. Surlshwar D Sinha and ors. - Petitioners

Versus

U.O.I. and Ors. - Respondents

Environment and Pollution - Pollution of Yamuna river when it crosses Delhi - Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes a right to clean water - Ministry of Urban Development to show as to how its Integrated Action Plan can be implemented within the prescribed' time frame - Chief Secretary, Delhi will also file an affidavit informing the Court as to what steps will be taken in order to ensure the attaining of the required quality of water in the river Yamuna so that the said river can no longer be called `mailee Yamuna'.

[Paras 7 and 8]

JUDGMENT

W.P. No. 537/1992

1. On an oral request being made by the learned Amicus Curiae - Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, State of Uttaranchal is impleaded as one of the respondents. Issue notice to the State of Uttaranchal returnable on 2nd May, 2001. Dasti service in addition is permitted.

2. The matter is adjourned to 2nd May, 2001.

I.A. No. 20 in W.P. 537/1992

3. The petitioner may file this application through the learned Amicus Curiae if he so desires.

W.P. (C) 725/94

4. There can be no denying of the fact that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution would surely include a right to clean water. That is a right which is being deprived to 13.8 million citizens of Delhi because of the large scale pollution of the river Yamuna. The entire pollution takes place only in the stretch which the Yamuna passes through Delhi, which is of about 22 Kms. The quality of water of the river Yamuna, when it enters Delhi, is far superior than that when it leaves Delhi and by the time Yamuna enters into Agra Canal. Delhi succeeds in reducing the dissolved Oxygen level of the water to 0 per cent.

5. This Court has been seized of the matter since a number of years but till today no effective steps have been taken to ensure the improvement of the quality of the water. The quality has deteriorated only. This itself shows the lack of proper governance.

6. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Urban Development on 8th November, 2000, an Integrated Action Plan has been proposed for improving the water quality of river Yamuna. The response to this, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Government, is that the Integrated Action Plan is broadly accepted, but as is usually the case, it has pleaded helplessness in implementing the same in its entirety.

7. It appears to us that with the existence of numerous agencies in Delhi no single entity can be held responsible for cleaning up the river Yamuna. Now when an Integrated Action Plan has been furnished, it is imperative that steps be taken so as to ensure that at least by 31st March, 2003 the minimum desired water quality i.e. of Class-C, of the river Yamuna is achieved.

8. We direct the Ministry of Urban Development to file a further affidavit indicating as to how its Integrated Action Plan can be implemented within the prescribed' time frame. Affidavit to this effect be filed within two weeks from today. The Chief Secretary, Delhi will also file an affidavit informing the Court as to what steps will be taken in order to ensure the attaining of the required quality of water in the river Yamuna so that the said river can no longer be called `mailee Yamuna' after 31-3-2003.

9. To come up for further orders on 2nd May, 2001.

.