9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Environmental Impact of Shrimp Farming 2. Enforcement of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 3. Constitution of National Coastal Management Authority 4. Legal Provisions and Compliance 5. Sustainable Development and Environmental Principles 6. Compensation for Affected Persons and Restoration of Environment Summary: 1. Environmental Impact of Shrimp Farming: Shrimp farming in India has shifted from traditional rice/shrimp rotating systems to more intensive methods, producing thousands of kilograms per hectare. This shift has led to significant environmental degradation, including pollution, salinization of soil and groundwater, destruction of mangroves, and loss of biodiversity. Reports from NEERI and other experts highlight the adverse impacts, such as the discharge of untreated effluents, obstruction of natural water flow, and increased salinity affecting agricultural lands and potable water sources. 2. Enforcement of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification: The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution sought enforcement of the CRZ Notification dated February 19, 1991, which prohibits certain activities within 500 meters of the High Tide Line (HTL). The Supreme Court directed that no shrimp culture farms could be set up within the CRZ, emphasizing that shrimp farming is neither "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities." The Court ordered the demolition of all shrimp farms operating within the CRZ by March 31, 1997. 3. Constitution of National Coastal Management Authority: The Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to protect ecologically fragile coastal areas. This authority, headed by a High Court Judge, would implement the "Precautionary Principle" and "Polluter Pays" principle, ensuring strict environmental scrutiny before permitting any shrimp farming activities. 4. Legal Provisions and Compliance: The judgment highlighted the failure of shrimp farms to comply with various environmental laws, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. The Court emphasized the need for shrimp farms to obtain necessary consents and authorizations from State Pollution Control Boards. 5. Sustainable Development and Environmental Principles: The Court reiterated the principles of "Sustainable Development," "Precautionary Principle," and "Polluter Pays" principle as part of the environmental law of the land. These principles mandate that environmental measures must anticipate and prevent degradation, and polluters must compensate for the harm caused and the cost of restoring the environment. 6. Compensation for Affected Persons and Restoration of Environment: The Court directed the newly constituted authority to assess the loss to the ecology and affected persons based on the "Polluter Pays" principle. The authority would determine compensation for individuals and the cost of reversing environmental damage. The compensation amount would be recovered from polluters and deposited in an "Environment Protection Fund" for disbursement and restoration activities. Final Directions: The Supreme Court issued several directives, including the closure and demolition of shrimp farms within the CRZ, prohibition of converting agricultural lands and other sensitive areas for shrimp farming, and the establishment of an eco-restoration fund. The workmen employed in the closed shrimp farms were to be compensated as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition was allowed with costs, directing the coastal States to pay the costs to the petitioner.
|
