The environment is frequently seen to suffer as a result of human growth. Everything has an impact on the environment, which is necessary for human existence to exist, from inappropriate non-biodegradable item disposal to significant industrial waste. India's Ganga River, which is revered as being the most sacred river in the country, is currently receiving massive volumes of home and industrial trash. The lawsuit centres on the river discharge of hazardous industrial effluents.

The goal of the case analysis is to examine the background information, the facts, the concerns discussed, the arguments put up by both parties, and the key concepts in the case. Typically, it is believed that human growth occurs at the expense of the environment. Everything that harms the environment—from careless dumping of non-biodegradable materials to large-scale industrial discharge—prevents human existence from thriving. In Republic of India, the Ganga, which is revered as the country's most holy stream, is now the destination of massive quantities of household and commercial trash. The Ganga river is the centre of this case's damaging industrial wastewater discharge.

Introduction
The Ganga emerges from the mountains, runs south and then east, and empties into the Bay of Bengal region. The numerous Indian civilizations have relied on the Ganga for their survival. One of the biggest cities, Kanpur, is situated on the banks of the Ganges and releases a significant amount of trash into the waterway. The industrial/trade effluents from the animal skin (leather) trade are the main waste product from this city.

The waste water from this business includes "putrescible organic and hazardous inorganic material," which, when dumped into the water, can cause the waterbody's level of dissolved oxygen to plummet, the death of aquatic life, and injury to those who drink the water. The Apex Court by a writ petition submitted by an environmental lawyer Mr. MC Mehta was made aware of the said matter. It was discovered that several companies along the banks of the Ganga watercourse were dumping their effluents into the watercourse without first treating anything comparable.

This Kanpur Leather Tanneries case is also known as the Ganga Pollution case.

Brief Facts Of The Case
Due to a poisonous coating of chemicals manufactured by a pharmaceutical company, a matchstick thrown by a smoker in 1985 in the holy city of Haridwar beside the river Ganga triggered the waterbody to catch fire for at least thirty hours.

Mr. M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer and a social activist filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India as a response to the occurrence. Mr. Mehta named 89 defendants, of whom Respondents 1, 7, 8, and 9 were the Union of India in 1985.

Mehta filed a petition (PIL), alleging that government officials had not taken adequate action to combat environmental contamination of the Ganga stream despite the advancements made by the code.

The scale of the case The whole 2,500 km of the river turned out to be unsolvable. Utilizing the legal tool of a writ, he urged state officials to forbid leather tanneries and the Kanpur municipal corporation from discharging residential and industrial waste into the stream. This case is sometimes referred to as the "Ganga Pollution Case"2 in legal publications. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the defendants from discharging cathartic effluents into the Ganga stream until they put in place treatment facilities for the disposal of cyanogenic effluents, which would help stop pollution.

Mehta asked the court to issue a directive to that district of Kanpur having animal skin (leather) tanneries to prohibit them from dumping their untreated effluent into the stream. In addition, he asserted that the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur was not making any effort to tackle residential biodegradable pollution.

Issues Raised:

• Did the authorities start an investigation into the deteriorating state of the holy watercourse after becoming aware of it?
• Whether the state had taken any action?
• Should funding be provided to smaller firms to repair wastewater treatment plants? If yes what measures should be used to categorise "minor industries"?

Judgement
The petitioner asked the court to ask the Supreme Court to enjoin the defendants from discharging cathartic effluents into the Ganga watercourse until such time as they implement certain treatment facilities for the disposal of unwholesome effluents to stop pollution. The Court emphasised the significance of some sections in our constitutional framework that codify the value and, hence, the need for safeguarding our environment.

At the preliminary hearing, the Court pointed the problem of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. According to Article 48-A3 , the State must work to protect and develop the country's environment, as well as its forests and wildlife. Each Indian citizen is required under Article 51-A4 of the Indian Constitution to protect and develop the country's natural environment, including its forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.

The Court declared the importance of the Water (Prevention and management of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Water Act'). This law was created to prevent pollution, control it, and preserve the purity of the water. This law created central, publicly recognised bodies and gave them authority and responsibilities for managing and reducing pollution. The use of any "stream" to dispose of contaminated material is forbidden by Section 24 of the Act. Section 2(j)5 of the Act defines a "stream" as any watercourse, The establishment of Central Boards and State Boards is permitted by the Act.

The authority of the boards is outlined in Sections 16 and 176 of the Act. Examining waste products or trade effluents, as well as plants for their treatment, is one of the State Board's responsibilities. If secondary treatment plants cannot be established, the court ordered the tanneries to build primary treatment plants. The tanneries should take those steps at a minimum given the situation.

The Court further ruled that while ordering the tanneries to build primary treatment facilities, their financial standing should be ignored. The central government will commission textbooks for the aforementioned use and give them gratis to educational institutions. Children should be taught the importance of preserving cleanliness, starting with their own homes' interior and exterior conditions as well as the streets around their homes.

A clean environment promotes a healthy body and mind. Short-term courses for such training should also be explored for the purpose of educating educators who teach this topic. India as a whole needs to implement this.

Judgement
The petitioner asked the court to ask the Supreme Court to enjoin the defendants from discharging cathartic effluents into the Ganga watercourse until such time as they implement certain treatment facilities for the disposal of unwholesome effluents to stop pollution. The Court emphasised the significance of some sections in our constitutional framework that codify the value and, hence, the need for safeguarding our environment.

At the preliminary hearing, the Court pointed the problem of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. According to Article 48-A3 , the State must work to protect and develop the country's environment, as well as its forests and wildlife. Each Indian citizen is required under Article 51-A4 of the Indian Constitution to protect and develop the country's natural environment, including its forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.

The Court declared the importance of the Water (Prevention and management of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Water Act'). This law was created to prevent pollution, control it, and preserve the purity of the water. This law created central, publicly recognised bodies and gave them authority and responsibilities for managing and reducing pollution. The use of any "stream" to dispose of contaminated material is forbidden by Section 24 of the Act. Section 2(j)5 of the Act defines a "stream" as any watercourse, The establishment of Central Boards and State Boards is permitted by the Act.

The authority of the boards is outlined in Sections 16 and 176 of the Act. Examining waste products or trade effluents, as well as plants for their treatment, is one of the State Board's responsibilities. If secondary treatment plants cannot be established, the court ordered the tanneries to build primary treatment plants. The tanneries should take those steps at a minimum given the situation.

The Court further ruled that while ordering the tanneries to build primary treatment facilities, their financial standing should be ignored. The central government will commission textbooks for the aforementioned use and give them gratis to educational institutions. Children should be taught the importance of preserving cleanliness, starting with their own homes' interior and exterior conditions as well as the streets around their homes. A clean environment promotes a healthy body and mind. Short-term courses for such training should also be explored for the purpose of educating educators who teach this topic. India as a whole needs to implement this.

End-Notes:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 48-A
2. ibid
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974