The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concerns over reports suggesting widespread water pollution in Rajasthan, indicating a possible systemic failure by the state government to manage such environmental issues. The matter was brought to the fore in a suo motu case titled In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination In Jojari River, Rajasthan, following a documentary that highlighted severe contamination risks in the districts of Jodhpur, Pali, and Barmer.
Supreme Court’s Examination
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reviewed the case on July 21, prompted by recent media reports alleging industrial pollution in various regions of Rajasthan. The reports pointed to significant environmental concerns that the Court could not overlook. Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized the gravity of these allegations, suggesting a broader systemic failure if verified.
Reports of Industrial Contamination
The Court received reports detailing specific instances of pollution: a pond near the Jojari River in Tanawada allegedly changed color due to industrial waste, and approximately 2,500 industrial units operated in Jaipur’s Sanganer-Dravyavati-Nevta region without the necessary environmental clearances. Moreover, effluents from the Sanganer-Sitapura industrial belt reportedly reached the Morel Dam, spanning about 56 kilometers, thereby compromising water resources.
Legal Implications and Government Response
In its order, the Court suggested invoking serious criminal charges under Sections 272, 326(a), and 326(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), alongside the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, against those responsible for the pollution. The Rajasthan government is required to justify why these charges have not been pursued in ongoing and future cases.
The Court also considered findings from a High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee, which outlined severe environmental degradation and regulatory failures. A comprehensive response from the Rajasthan government regarding these findings is awaited, with the Court mandating the Chief Secretary’s personal accountability for compliance with its directives.
More Read
The proceedings will continue on August 4 as the Court awaits a detailed affidavit from the state government, addressing each of the committee’s recommendations and findings. Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and Pallav Shishodia represented certain applicants, while Advocate Digvijay Singh Jasol appeared in person.
