S. Jaganath Vs Union of India and Ors (1996) INSC 1592

Introduction

The land-mark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors, 1996 INSC 1592, was a case testing the ecological and social impact of commercial shrimp farming in India. The judgment assumes importance for the recognition of environmental damage caused by intensive aquaculture practices and enforcement of sustainable development principles to regulate the shrimp farming industry. The Court, therefore, in this judgment, laid emphasis on the fact that at all costs, economic development should not be sought at the cost of environmental degradation, particularly in the ecologically sensitive coastal regimes.

Background

Shrimp farming in India made a radical turnaround in the early 1990s from traditional extensive systems to more intensive and semi-intensive practices. Traditionally, fishermen in India followed the rice/shrimp rotation system, an environmentally benign and sustainable practice. However, the pressure from growing demands for shrimp in international markets then shifted production to more intensive farming methods that promised better yields. This paved the way for large private companies and multinational corporations to invest heavily in shrimp farms, especially in the coastal regions of the country. In only a few years, more than 80,000 hectares of land, mostly agricultural land, were converted into shrimp farms.

Their rapid expansion came at a cost. Soon, these farming practices made a big impact on the environment: loss of farmland, mangrove destruction, salinization of both land and water, and loss of biodiversity. Other serious threats to the ecosystem balance in the coastal areas came from the unregulated use of chemicals and extraction of groundwater. These developments deeply concerned environmentalists, fishermen, and other stakeholders, who filed a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of coastal zone regulations and cessation of harmful shrimp farming practices.

Facts of the Case

The present petitioner, S. Jagannath, came to the Supreme Court of India regarding the environmental degradation caused by intensive shrimp farming. He sought enforcement of a notification pertaining to coastal zone regulation issued by the Government of India, having for its object the protection of coastal ecosystem. The petition had further prayed for stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas and prohibition of using wetlands for prawn farming. He further demanded the establishment of a National Coastal Management Authority for protecting marine life and coastal areas.

On the basis of the petition, the Supreme Court had undertaken a detailed study of national and international reports on the ecological and social effects of commercial shrimp farming. The matters concerning the loss of agricultural land, mangrove destruction, obstruction of natural drains, salinization, destruction of natural seed resources, use of harmful chemicals, extraction of groundwater, and loss of biodiversity were examined by the Court.

Issues

1. Whether the shift from traditional to intensive shrimp farming was causing irreversible environmental damage by way of destruction of agricultural lands, mangroves, and wetlands?
2. Whether such intensive shrimp-farming practice infringed upon the coastal zone regulation notification issued by the Government of India to protect ecologically sensitive coastal areas?
3. Whether the shrimp farming industry could be regulated to pursue a balanced economic development and environmental protection, with a view to promoting sustainable development in the coastal tracts?

Arguments by the Petitioner

He contended that the intensive farming of shrimp was causing enormous ecological damage in the form of mangrove, wetland, and even agricultural land destruction—ecologically very sensitive areas. This illegal behavior has been in contravention to the coastal zone regulation notification, issued to protect the coastal ecosystem from such activities, said the petitioner.

The petitioner also brought out the social consequences of shrimp farming with regard to loss of livelihood for the landless laborers who were dependent upon agriculture. The petitioner argued that the shift from traditional to intensive farming was not only ecologically devastating but also socially unjust.

In addition, he made reference to the precautionary principle as well as the polluter pays principle. To his view, these doctrines made sure that environmental protection was prior to any economic gain or profit, and also made sure that the company to which environmental harm is done remains responsible.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents, who included the Union of India and some private shrimp farming companies, argued that this industry is an important contributor to the national economy in terms of export earnings, provides a means of livelihood to large numbers of people, and helps in the economic development of coastal regions.

These respondents added that the shrimp industry had adopted a number of measures to reduce environmental impact, such as the adoption of better farming practices and technology. They said that the industry was ready and willing to comply with regulatory requirements, and an absolute ban on shrimp farming would have far negative repercussions on the economy.

It was submitted that the coastal zone regulation notification permitted some types of aquaculture activities, and the shrimp farms at issue in these writ petitions were operating under cover of law. Submission was made that the environmental impact of shrimp farming could be controlled by more effective regulation and monitoring, rather than by a total ban.

Judgment

It is in these contexts that, upon listening to the arguments of both parties and scrutiny of the evidence led before it, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment in favour of the petitioner. It acknowledged the serious environmental and social consequences arising out of intensive shrimp farming and underlined the need for sustainable development in coastal regions.

It was then that the Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority with powers to protect ecologically fragile coastal areas. That authority was entrusted with enforcement of the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays” principles and taking other associated protective steps in the regulation of the prawn farming industry.

It also held that no shrimp culture pond could be constructed or established within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the notification relating to coastal zone regulation. It excluded traditional types of shrimp farming found to be environmentally innocuous from this direction. It ordered demolition of all shrimp culture industries existing within the coastal regulation zone and failing to conform to the notification.

Furthermore, the conversion of agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wetlands, and forest lands for setting up shrimp culture ponds was disallowed. The Court allowed shrimp culture industries  to be set up outside the coastal regulation zone, subject to the prior approval of the newly constituted authority.

The Court further directed that the authority shall assess the damage caused to the environment by shrimp farming, and the total compensation to be paid for the damage caused by pollution and the loss of means of livelihood to individual persons and families.

Analysis

What makes the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors. very significant is that it reiterates the principles of environment protection and sustainable development as integral to the regulation of industries having substantial impacts on natural resources. Indeed, the emphasis laid by the Court on the principles of “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays” reflects emerging recognition of proactive and responsible environmental governance.

It brought to the forefront that there is a need for a balanced approach to economic development, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. The Court understood that though growth and development of the economy were very important, they cannot be at the cost of environment degradation and social injustice. It is emphasized by the judgment that an overall environmental impact assessment  ought to be taken into consideration before approval is accorded for industrial activity in the coastal areas.

What is most noted in the verdict, though, is the rights of local communities, particularly the most vulnerable populations to the impacts of environmental degradation. The directive for assessment of compensation towards the losses of shrimp farming is a step to protect the interests of those marginally situated against the pursuit of economic development.

It finally laid the main foundation for the control of industries having a potential danger to the environment. The Court, in laying down the right to regulate shrimp farming and by enforcing the notification of coastal zone regulation, provided the format for the sustainable management of the coastal resources, which can likewise be applied to other sectors as well.

Conclusion

In the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors is one such landmark judgment in the field of environmental law relating to India. As a result, this decision of the SC, which directed towards prioritization of protection of the environment and sustainable development in the regulation of shrimp farming, has set a significant precedent for the management of natural resources in the areas that are ecologically sensitive. It underlined that the economic development of the country should be balanced with environment and socio-economic factors. The Court has made protection of the environment at the core of industrial regulation by enforcing the principles of “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays,” and held the persons responsible for degrading environment accountable. The case thus puts us in a situation where it will remind us of our responsibility to the environment for future generations, but at the same time, making sure that any economic development carried out is both equitable and inclusive.