Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2003 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (8) TMI 529 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues:
- Implied repeal of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the introduction of Water Act and Air Act.
- Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code.
- Comparison of provisions of Water Act, Air Act, and Section 133 of the Code.
- Legal implications of environmental pollution on public health and rights.
- Doctrine of implied repeal and its application in the present case.

Implied Repeal of Section 133 of the Code:
The High Court held that the Water Act and the Air Act impliedly repealed Section 133 of the Code concerning public nuisance caused by air and water pollution from industries. The High Court concluded that the two Acts operated in specific fields and ruled out the application of Section 133 of the Code in cases of pollution. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the two sets of laws were not contradictory but complementary, with different objectives. The Court noted that the provisions of the Water Act and Air Act were curative, preventive, and penal, while Section 133 of the Code focused on preventive measures. Therefore, the High Court's finding of implied repeal was deemed incorrect.

Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate:
The case involved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issuing orders under Section 133 of the Code to close industrial units due to pollution causing public nuisance. The respondents challenged these orders, arguing that the enactment of the Water Act and Air Act had repealed Section 133. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 133 of the Code aimed to prevent public nuisance with a sense of urgency, applicable when the nuisance was in existence. The Court highlighted the distinction between Section 133 and Section 144 of the Code, noting that the former was more specific and akin to civil proceedings, not criminal.

Comparison of Legal Provisions:
The High Court compared the provisions of the Water Act, Air Act, and Section 133 of the Code. It viewed the environmental pollution laws as an elaboration and enlargement of the powers under Section 133, ruling out the latter's operation in cases of air and water pollution. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the pollution laws and Section 133 served different purposes with no inherent conflict, allowing them to coexist without implied repeal.

Environmental Pollution and Legal Implications:
The judgment highlighted the significance of environmental pollution laws in protecting public health and rights. It noted that environmental pollution violated the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of a hygienic environment for human dignity. The Court underscored the penal consequences in the Water Act and Air Act for breaching pollution control provisions, aligning with the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

Doctrine of Implied Repeal:
The Court delved into the doctrine of implied repeal, emphasizing that the presumption against repeal by implication stemmed from the Legislature's presumed knowledge of existing laws. It outlined the criteria for inferring implied repeal, including direct conflict, legislative intent, and occupying the same field. The Court highlighted that unless two laws were irreconcilable, a repeal would not be implied, and in this case, the pollution laws and Section 133 could operate concurrently without conflict.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates