Enforceable anti-pollution duties require municipal action, sewage treatment, and tighter controls to protect river health.

Statutory duties on municipal and pollution-control authorities to prevent untreated sewage and other waste entering the river were treated as enforceable obligations aimed at protecting public health and the environment. Persistent non-compliance was characterised as a public nuisance and failure to perform mandatory sanitation and pollution-control functions. The Court also set out preventive measures requiring sewage-treatment proposals, regulation of dairies and manure pits, improved sewerage and public sanitation, restrictions on new industrial licensing without effluent treatment, and steps to curb disposal of dead bodies in the river. It further discouraged routine delay in pollution prosecutions and supported environmental education and cleanliness measures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the municipal authority and connected public bodies were under enforceable statutory duties to prevent discharge of untreated sewage and other waste into the river and to protect public health and the environment. (ii) What remedial and preventive directions were required to curb river pollution, including sewage treatment, management of dairies, public sanitation, dead bodies, new industrial licensing, and prosecution-related delay.

Issue (i): Whether the municipal authority and connected public bodies were under enforceable statutory duties to prevent discharge of untreated sewage and other waste into the river and to protect public health and the environment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed primary responsibility on the municipal body for sanitation, sewage disposal, protection of water supplies, and prevention of pollution. The water pollution legislation likewise imposed duties on the Central and State Boards to monitor, prevent, control, and abate pollution, while the environmental statute recognised governmental responsibility for offences committed by public departments. Persistent discharge of untreated waste into the river was treated as a failure to perform these statutory obligations and as a public nuisance affecting the community at large.

Conclusion: The statutory duties were enforceable, and the municipal authority was held responsible for taking effective steps to prevent pollution.

Issue (ii): What remedial and preventive directions were required to curb river pollution, including sewage treatment, management of dairies, public sanitation, dead bodies, new industrial licensing, and prosecution-related delay.

Analysis: The Court issued comprehensive directions to accelerate sewage treatment works, require submission of sewage treatment proposals, regulate or relocate dairies and manure pits, enlarge sewers in labour colonies, construct public latrines and urinals, prevent throwing of corpses and half-burnt bodies into the river, refuse licences for new industries unless effluent treatment was provided, and discourage routine stays of prosecutions under the water pollution law. It also directed environmental education in schools and broader public cleanliness measures as part of the constitutional duty to protect and improve the natural environment.

Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substantial part and the authorities were directed to implement immediate and continuing anti-pollution measures.

Final Conclusion: The decision imposed binding environmental duties on municipal and governmental authorities and required active, time-bound measures to stop untreated discharge into the river and to protect public health.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutes cast specific duties on municipal and pollution-control authorities to prevent contamination of water, persistent failure to discharge those duties in the face of grave public harm can be remedied through public interest enforcement and mandatory directions.

---