Supreme Court of India
PEOPLES RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE (PRASAR) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 582
- Decided
- 6 August 2024
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal should oversee enforcement of environmental standards to prevent silicosis, and the NHRC should supervise compensation and rehabilitation, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.
Summary
The Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (PRASAR), a Delhi‑based NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking relief for the widespread occurrence of silicosis among workers in mining, construction, stone‑cutting and sand‑blasting industries. The petition alleged violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 and directive principles (Arts. 39(e), 42, 48A, 43) due to the State’s failure to ensure safe working conditions, provide medical care, compensation and rehabilitation. The Court examined extensive reports from the NHRC, CPCB, State Pollution Control Boards and other authorities, noting persistent non‑compliance and inadequate implementation of earlier directions. It held that the National Green Tribunal is the appropriate forum to enforce environmental standards and order closure of non‑compliant units, while the NHRC should supervise prompt compensation and rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Court directed the NGT and NHRC to receive all relevant reports, oversee enforcement, and ordered the petition and the transferred case to be disposed of.
Issues considered
- The extent to which the State's failure to prevent silicosis violates Article 21 and the directive principles of state policy.
- Whether the National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce environmental standards to prevent occupational silicosis.
- Whether the National Human Rights Commission can be directed to oversee compensation and rehabilitation for silicosis victims.
Legislation cited
Subjects
SilicosisMining industryConstruction industryStone cuttingSandblastingOccupational lung diseaseWorker health and safetyCompensationRehabilitationEnvironmental standardsNational Green TribunalCentral Pollution Control BoardState Pollution Control BoardNational Human Rights CommissionArticle 21Directive Principles
Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 99 : 2024 INSC 582
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre
(Prasar) & Ors.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 110 of 2006)
06 August 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the issue of Silicosis among workers in various
industries across the country.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 32, 21, 39(e), 42, 48A and 43 –
“Silicosis” among workers – Need for systemic reforms – Writ
petition u/Art. 32 seeking intervention to address the issue
of “Silicosis” among workers in various industries such
as mining, construction, stone cutting, and sandblasting,
where workers exposed to high levels of silica dust causing
incurable occupational lung disease – Petitioner’s case
that ‘Silicosis’ rampant throughout India due to inadequate
detection, monitoring, and remedial measures, thus,urgent
need for systemic reforms to protect the health and rights
of workers across the country; and that the State’s failure
to protect workers from hazardous conditions and provide
adequate medical care, compensation, and rehabilitation, a
direct infringement of the constitutional mandates:
Held: As regards the environmental aspect, to ensure that the
industries abide by certain minimal standards to prevent silicosis
among their workers, and in the event of non-compliance, these
industries to face closure – NGT directed to oversee the impact
of silicosis-prone industries and factories across India and ensure
that the Central Pollution Control Board and the respective State
Pollution Control Board comply with the earlier directions of this
Court – NGT to undertake any additional necessary steps to
prevent the spread of silicosis by such industries and factories –
As regards, the adequate compensation to be received by the
* Author
100 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
affected workers or their next of kins as swiftly as possible, the
NHRC directed to oversee the compensation process across
the respective states – ESIC and the Chief Secretaries of the
respective states to adhere to the directions of the NHRC and
collaborate with them to ensure that the compensation distribution
process is carried out efficiently and without delay – Furthermore,
the Registry of this Court to ensure that all the relevant reports
and affidavits submitted by the respective State Committees, the
CPCB, the NHRC, and the DGMS, are forwarded to the NGT
and the NHRC to facilitate the execution of their responsibilities
effectively and swiftly. [Paras 7-9]
Case Law Cited
Occupational Health & Safety Association Versus Union of India
& Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 79 of 2005] Order dated 30.01.2008 –
referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Societies Registration Act, 1860; Protection
of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006; Factories Act, 1948;
Mines Act, 1952; National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
List of Keywords
Issue of “Silicosis”; Industries such as mining, construction, stone
cutting, and sandblasting; High levels of silica dust; Incurable
occupational lung disease; Inadequate detection, monitoring,
and remedial measures; Systemic reforms; State’s failure to
protect workers from hazardous conditions and provide adequate
medical care; Compensation; Rehabilitation; Environmental
aspect; Compensation distribution process; National Green
Tribunal; Central Pollution Control Board; State Pollution Control
Board.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.110 of 2006
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Transferred Case (C) No.8 of 2017
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 101
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G., Shiv Mangal
Sharma, Tapesh Kumar Singh, A.A.Gs., Colin Gonsalves, Uday Gupta,
Arijit Prasad, Sr. Advs., Ms. Mugdha, Kamran Khwaja, Satya Mitra,
Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Shivani Lal, Gaurav Dave, Ms. Sanam Singh,
Harish Dasan, Rajiv Ranjan, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Ms. Yogamaya
M.G., Hiren Dasan, Digvijay Dam, Abhishek Kumar, Navanjay
Mahapatra, Pranay Ranjan, Siddharath Sinha, Amrish Kumar, Debojit
Borkakati, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Milind Kumar,
Jasmeet Singh, P. V. Yogeswaran, Ms. Neha Rathi, Kamal Kishore,
Ms. Kajal Giri, B. Balaji, Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Gopal Singh, P. N. Puri, Ms. Smiriti Puri,
Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Ravinder Pratap Singh, Manish Dhingra,
C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose, Ms. Anupriya, Rahul Khurana,
Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Vaibhav
Yadav, Ms. Gunjan Singhania, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som,
Manish Verma, Vishal Prasad, Fateh Singh, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi
Jain, Mahesh Kasana, S. K. Verma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Aravindh
S., Saurabh Mishra, Shrimay Mishra, Abhinav Pandey, Rakesh
Chander, Nirbhaya S Tewari, Abhimanyu Singh, Ajay Sharma, Sunny
Choudhary, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D Singh, Shantanu Sagar,
Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Aditya Singh,
V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Shreeyas Lalit, Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Anando
Mukherjee, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Shwetank Singh, Som Raj Choudhury,
Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Prashant Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand
Kumar Dubey, Jainendra Kumar, Nishant Verma, M. Yogesh Kanna,
Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Sumit Kumar, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla,
Ashutosh Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Astha Sharma, Shreyas
Awasthi, Ms. Lhizu Shiney Konyak, Santosh Krishnan, Yakesh Anand,
Ms. Sonam Anand, Ms. S.L. Soujanya, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Mohit
Paul, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Kunal Chatterji, Supratik Sarkar, Sravan
Kumar Karanam, Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. Tayade Pranali Gowardhan,
Aniket Singh, Ms. Jayashree Pk, Jayesh Gaurav, Ishwar Chandra
Roy, Ms. Diksha Ojha, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Ms. Richa Kapoor,
Kunal Anand, Ms. Shisham Pradhan, Vivek Kumar, Abhishek Gautam,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
102 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 110 OF 2006:
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner-People’s Rights and Social Research Centre,
a Delhi-based non-governmental organization, seeking intervention of
this Court in addressing the grave issue of “Silicosis” among workers
in various industries across the country. The petitioner organization,
registered under the Societies Registration Act since December
20, 1999, has been actively involved in occupational health work,
specifically concerning stone crusher workers, stone quarry workers
and construction workers.
2. Silicosis is an incurable occupational lung disease caused by
prolonged inhalation of silica dust and it has been rampant throughout
India due to inadequate detection, monitoring, and remedial measures.
It predominantly affects workers engaged in industries such as
mining, construction, stone cutting, and sandblasting, where they
are exposed to high levels of silica dust. Over time, the inhaled
silica particles cause inflammation and scarring of the lung tissue,
leading to reduced lung function and severe respiratory distress.
The disease manifests in three forms: chronic, accelerated, and
acute silicosis, depending on the intensity and duration of exposure.
Chronic silicosis, the most common form, develops over 10 to 30
years of low to moderate exposure, while accelerated and acute
forms occur over shorter periods with higher exposure levels. The
symptoms include shortness of breath, persistent cough, chest pain,
and fatigue, often leading to severe disability and premature death.
Despite its preventable nature through adequate safety measures,
monitoring, and use of protective equipment, the lack of stringent
enforcement and awareness has resulted in a significant number
of workers contracting this debilitating disease. The petitioner
underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms to address the
detection, prevention, and treatment of silicosis to protect the health
and rights of workers across the country.
3. The petitioner contends that the pervasive and unchecked prevalence
of silicosis among workers in various industries constitutes a violation
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 103
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
of the workers’ fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
Central to this petition is the assertion that the right to health, safety,
and a life of dignity, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,
is being grossly neglected. Furthermore, the Petitioner invokes the
Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39(e) and 42
of the Constitution of India which mandate the State to ensure that
the health and strength of workers is not abused and that citizens
are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited
to their age or strength. The petitioner argues that the State’s failure
to protect workers from hazardous conditions and provide adequate
medical care, compensation, and rehabilitation is a direct infringement
of these constitutional mandates. Additionally, the petitioner submits
that the Right to a clean and healthy environment, as implicit under
Article 48A, is being violated. The petitioner also references Article
43, which directs the State to ensure a living wage, conditions of
work ensuring a decent standard of life, and full enjoyment of leisure
and social and cultural opportunities for workers.
4. The Petitioner organization highlights the lack of sufficient insurance,
treatment, compensation, and rehabilitation for victims and their
families. The Petitioner has urged this Court to direct the constitution
of a high-level committee to comprehensively address the detection
and management of silicosis and other occupational diseases
among workers, particularly in the unorganized sector. Furthermore,
the Petitioner seeks guidelines for the prevention and treatment of
such diseases, the rehabilitation of affected persons and families,
compensation for the families of deceased workers, and alternative
employment opportunities for the victims’ family members.
Summary of Proceedings thus far
5. This Writ Petition was filed in 2006. Since then, various orders
have been passed and it would be necessary to go through them to
understand the current scenario pertaining to this writ petition. The
original Writ Petitioner had the following Respondents:
• The Union of India
• Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs.
• Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
• The State of Haryana
104 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
• The State of Rajasthan
• The State of Gujarat
• The State of Delhi
• The Union of Territory of Puducherry.
5.1 On 27.03.2006, notice was issued to these respondents.
Given the human rights aspect of this matter, the National
Human Rights Commission1, a statutory body constituted under
Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006, was
also made a party to these proceedings constituted to ensure
compensation is reached to the families of the victims.
5.2 On 25.07.2008, NHRC was permitted to implead the Central
Pollution Control Board2 as a party.
5.3 On 5.3.2009, pursuant to court’s order, the NHRC submitted its
preliminary report on a survey on silicosis affecting workers in
various industries which showed that the issue is widespread
across many states, and further surveys were needed. The
Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labour, Union of India, were
directed to provide all necessary assistance to the NHRC for
further action regarding silicosis. The NHRC was directed to
address specific confirmed cases of silicosis, recommending
immediate medical relief for sufferers and compensation for
families of those who died due to the said disease.
5.4 On 01.02.2010, the State of Madhya Pradesh was also added
as a respondent in this matter.
5.5 On 12.11.2010, following an order of this court dated 05.03.2009,
the NHRC submitted a detailed report highlighting the State of
Gujarat’s failure to protect workers affected by Silicosis and
recommending compensation to them. The report observed that
there was failure on the part of the enforcement agencies in
Gujarat to ensure protection of the mine workers in Godhra and
it recommended an amount of Rs 3,00,000/- as compensation
to the next of kins of the 238 workers who had died due to
Silicosis. Moreover, the 304 workers which had come from the
1 NHRC
2 CPCB
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 105
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh to work in Gujarat as mine workers
were directed to be given rehabilitation packages by the relevant
authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5.6 On 18.2.2014, given the prevalence of the issue in this matter,
the Court impleaded the remaining States as Respondents in
this matter.
5.7 On 4.5.2016, the Court observed that the directions issued
in the report submitted by the NHRC on 12.11.2010 were not
followed by the State of Gujarat. The Employees State Insurance
Corporation3 was impleaded as a party-respondent through its
Director General. The State of Gujarat was directed to comply
with NHRC’s recommendation by paying ₹1 lakh to the kins of
each of the 238 deceased workers and depositing remaining
₹2 lakhs in their names in fixed deposits within one month. The
Chief Secretary of Gujarat was directed to transfer ₹3 lakhs
per deceased worker to the District Collectors of Jhabua and
Alirajpur for distribution. The distribution was to be handled by
the District Collectors, and assistance from ESIC could be sought
if needed. The State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to file an
affidavit detailing the rehabilitation steps for the 304 affected
individuals identified by NHRC. The CPCB was also ordered
to file an affidavit on actions taken based on the Committee’s
report on silicosis and pneumoconiosis in Godhra, Gujarat.
5.8 On 23.8.2016, the Court reviewed the affidavit filed by the
District Collectors of the affected regions in the State of Gujarat
and acknowledged their efforts in ensuring the compensation
was received by the next of kins of the victims. The Court also
reviewed the Additional Affidavit filed by the CPCB and observed
that 16 out of 30 operational quartz grinding units in Gujarat
were non-compliant with statutory mandates. The CPCB also
made recommendations for the State Pollution Control Board4
to address deficiencies. The Court directed the SPCB to file
an affidavit within four weeks on actions taken based on these
recommendations and on closing down 14 non-operational units.
It was further stated that if non-compliant units intend to restart,
3 ESIC
4 SPCB
106 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
they must meet mandatory requirements. SPCB must ensure
compliance with mandatory pollution prevention measures
and take steps to close non-compliant units. The CPCB also
conducted an inspection of the quartz grinding units in the State
of Gujarat and had made the following recommendations:
“i. Adequate provision of dust extraction systems shall
be made at potential sources such as jaw crusher
hoppers, transfer points of materials from conveyor
belts, disintegrators, transfer points of materials from
bucket elevators to other plant equipment, rotary
screens, magnetic separators, vibratory screens,
etc. The dust extraction systems of such potential
sources shall be routed through an Air Pollution Control
Device (APCD). Stacks attached to APCDs are to be
equipped with adequate monitoring facilities as per
CPCB Emission Regulation, Part-III.
ii. The height of the stack shall be maintained at
a minimum of 2 meters above the roof level as
prescribed by the Board.
iii. Sheds provided for plant process machineries shall
be closed properly, and provision of Closed Circuit
Television (CCTV) cameras shall be made rather
than keeping small openings in the shed for frequent
observations.
iv. The internal roads shall be made of bitumen/concrete
to reduce fugitive emissions by vehicular movement,
with proper cleaning and wetting mechanisms.
v. Provision of a green belt shall be made along the
periphery of the individual units.
vi. Provision shall be made for systematic water
sprinkling at places of dust generation to reduce
fugitive emissions, and records of water utilization
shall be maintained.
vii. A telescopic chute or any other system shall be
adopted to reduce fugitive emissions while loading
the products into trucks or fine dust in bags.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 107
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
viii. Provision of Personal Protective Equipment (dust
masks, helmets, safety shoes, goggles, earplugs) and
utilization by all workers during the operation of the
plant shall be ensured.
ix. The units shall ensure environmental monitoring
and submission of reports to GPCB at regular intervals.
x. The housekeeping shall be improved.
xi. The units shall submit a time-bound action plan
to comply with the above measures within 30 days.”
5.9 Hence, pursuant to the recommendation of the CPCB, the Court
directed the SPCB Chairmen of Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh, Puducherry, Jharkhand, and Delhi to inspect quartz
grinding units and report deficiencies within three weeks. SPCB
Chairmen were directed to personally visit units’ post-compliance
period and take steps to close non-compliant units.
5.10 The State of Madhya Pradesh had identified 334 silicosis-
affected individuals who claimed rehabilitation actions. The
District Legal Services Authorities of Jhabua, Alirajpur, and
Dhar were directed to verify actual distribution of benefits and
submit a report within eight weeks. They were to ensure that
no silicosis-affected individual was deprived of benefits. In
case of deceased victims, compensation was to be processed
as per policy.
5.11 The Court made further observation on the general problems of
silicosis in India and observed that the severity of the problems
is mainly in the States of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, and Puducherry. The NHRC had
conducted a detailed survey on this issue and submitted a
report to the duty holders concerned. But the court noted that no
meaningful action has been taken either in any of the prevention
and rehabilitation areas. The Court made further observations
that vide order dated 30th January 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 79 of
2005 titled ‘Occupational Health & Safety Association Versus
Union of India & Ors.’ this Court had considered certain aspects
on the reduction of occupational hazards of the employees of
the Thermal Power Stations in the country and had also issued
the following directions:
108 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“i. Comprehensive medical check-up of all workers
in all coal-fired thermal power stations by doctors
appointed in consultation with the trade unions.
The first medical check-up is to be completed
within six months.
ii. Free and comprehensive medical treatment
to be provided to all workmen found to be
suffering from an occupational disease, ailment,
or accident until cured or until death.
iii. Services of the workmen not to be terminated
during illness and to be treated as if on duty.
iv. Compensation to be paid to workmen suffering
from any occupational disease, ailment, or
accident in accordance with the provisions of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923.
v. Modern protective equipment to be provided to
workmen as recommended by an expert body
in consultation with the trade unions.
vi. Strict control measures to be immediately
adopted for the control of dust, heat, noise,
vibration, and radiation to be recommended by
the National Institute of Occupational Health
(NIOH), Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
vii. All employers to abide by the Code of Practice
on Occupational Safety and Health Audit as
developed by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
viii. Safe methods to be followed for the handling,
collection, and disposal of hazardous waste to
be recommended by NIOH.
ix. Appointment of a Committee of experts by NIOH
including representatives from trade unions and
Health and Safety NGOs to look into the issue
of Health and Safety of workers and make
recommendations.”
5.12 The Court noted that these directions would be applicable to
silica units as well. There was a direction to the Chief Secretary
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 109
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
of the respective States to file an affidavit, after convening a
meeting of the duty holders regarding the implementation of the
various reports, and to file an affidavit as to the action taken in
the respective states. The Court made it clear that it was not
concerned with any policy framework of the State. The report
was on the benefits which have actually been made available
to the victims. The Court also directed the Chief Secretary of
the States concerned to submit a detailed report as above
within a period of two months from today, failing which they
will be present before this Court at their own expense on the
next date of hearing. The court assigned various specialists
across the State of India to constitute an enquiry and report to
the court with regard to the medical facilities available to the
patients affected by silicosis and whether any compensation
was made available to them, etc. The required expenditure
was to be borne by the State concerned where the enquiry is
being conducted. On the legal framework, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners had brought to the notice
that the duty holders were the Director General of Mines Safety
(DGMS), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of
India, and the Director General, Factory Advice Service and
Labour Institutes (DG-FASLI), Government of India. The court
directed the above duty holders to submit a report on the
following aspects:
i. “The geographical location and the industries/
mines state-wise where workers at risk of
silicosis are to be found.
ii. The number of workers working at these sites
and the estimates of the number of workers
suffering from silicosis/ pneumoconiosis in
the country, state-wise, and industry/mine-
wise.
iii. The details of the number of workers suffering
from silicosis/pneumoconiosis, their medical
treatment, and compensation paid.
iv. Details of the number of workers who died due
to silicosis during the last 10 years and the
compensation, if any, paid.”
110 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5.13 Thereafter, the Court also directed the Director General of Mines
Safety5 and the Director General, Factory Advice Service and
Labour Institutes (DG-FASLI) to carry out a health and safety
survey of silicosis-affected workers under section 91A of the
Factories Act and section 9A of the Mines Act, by actively
involving, apart from government officials, non-government
organizations working in silicosis-affected areas, and submit a
comprehensive report to the Court as to the facilities available
in the field of treatment, actual payment of compensation made
available to the victims, and other rehabilitation steps for the
affected workers and their family members. The Court directed
the Chief Secretary of each State to make all arrangements
for facilitating the survey and preparation of the reports by the
doctors concerned in each State.
5.14 On 10.2.2017, the Court allowed the impleadment application
of Silicosis Peedit Sangh.
5.15 On 1.5.2017, the Court reiterated the order dated 23.8.2016
regarding compensation for those affected by and deceased
from silicosis to be implemented by all States. The NHRC was
permitted to file its recommendations. The CPCB was directed
to file an affidavit detailing whether the recommendations in
its report were being followed by quartz and other silica dust-
producing industries.
5.16 On 05.03.2019, the Court reviewed the report submitted by
CPCB filed on 24.7.2017 after the inspection of polluting units
which had been functioning in the respondent-State. According to
them, a grim picture of large-scale environmental law violations
was taking place which led to serious health problems and
deaths in affected areas.
5.17 Mr. Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the Petitioner, suggested
further steps needed to be taken to ensure the closure of these
polluting units. The Respondent counsel indicated that many
units have been ordered to be closed, and further action is being
taken for the closure of non-functional and still-operating units.
It was submitted that the respondents-States who allowed such
5 DGMS
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 111
Peoples Rights and Social Research Centre (Prasar) & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors.
units to operate should be made to pay adequate compensation
to the victims. The Union of India be also directed to submit
their response to the Reports submitted by the NHRC.
6. Having perused the various reports submitted by the respective State
Committees, the NHRC, the CPCB, and the DGMS, the instant writ
petition raises two primary aspects for consideration. For both these
aspects, there are statutory bodies duly constituted. They would
be in a better position to monitor and oversee that the mandate of
law and the earlier directions issued by this Court are not only duly
implemented but further necessary steps are also undertaken.
7. Firstly, the environmental aspect of the matter pertains to ensuring
that industries abide by certain minimal standards to prevent silicosis
among their workers. In the event of non-compliance, these industries
should face closure. In our considered opinion, the National Green
Tribunal6 is the appropriate authority to oversee this aspect of the
matter. The NGT, established under the National Green Tribunal Act
in 2010, is tasked with the expeditious disposal of cases related to
environmental protection and the speedy implementation of decisions.
Given that this writ petition was filed in 2006, prior to the establishment
of the NGT, these matters could not have been presented before
the Tribunal initially. However, we now direct the NGT to oversee
the impact of silicosis-prone industries and factories across India
and ensure that the CPCB and the respective SPCBs comply with
the earlier directions of this Court. Furthermore, we direct the NGT
to undertake any additional necessary steps to prevent the spread
of silicosis by such industries and factories.
8. The second aspect concerns ensuring that adequate compensation
is received by the affected workers or their next of kins as swiftly
as possible. In this regard, we direct the NHRC to oversee the
compensation process across the respective states. We also direct
the ESIC and the Chief Secretaries of the respective states to adhere
to the directions of the NHRC and collaborate with them to ensure
that the compensation distribution process is carried out efficiently
and without delay.
6 NGT
112 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. We further direct the Registry of this Court to ensure that all the
relevant reports and affidavits pertaining to this matter, as submitted
by the respective State Committees, the CPCB, the NHRC, and the
DGMS, are forwarded to the NGT and the NHRC to facilitate the
execution of their responsibilities effectively and swiftly. Petitioners
would also be at liberty to approach the NGT and NHRC and extend
all cooperation in implementation of the directions.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Transferred Case (C) No.8 of 2017
11. The Transferred Case (C) No.8 of 2017 is also disposed of in the
same terms as above.
Result of the case: Writ petition and Transfer case disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Silicosis"Sign in to search