Holding

Modern shrimp aquaculture farms are prohibited in the coastal regulation zone under the CRZ Notification, which prevails over state laws, and must be demolished with compensation and a national authority established to enforce coastal protection.

Summary

The petition, filed under Article 32, sought to stop intensive and semi‑intensive prawn farming in ecologically fragile coastal zones, to prohibit use of waste/wet lands for such farms, and to constitute a national coastal management authority. The Court examined whether modern shrimp aquaculture constitutes a prohibited activity under the 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, which bars activities not directly related to the waterfront or requiring foreshore facilities, and whether the Notification overrides conflicting state statutes. Relying on extensive expert reports, the Court held that modern shrimp farms are hazardous, degrade marine ecology, and are not "directly related to waterfront" or "foreshore facilities", thus falling within the prohibited category. The Court affirmed the primacy of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the CRZ Notification over state laws, and applied the precautionary and polluter‑pays principles. Consequently, it ordered demolition of non‑traditional shrimp farms within the CRZ, compensation to affected persons, and the creation of a high‑level authority to enforce coastal protection.

Issues considered

The legality of modern shrimp aquaculture under the CRZ Notification's prohibition of activities not directly related to waterfront or requiring foreshore facilities
Whether the CRZ Notification, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, prevails over conflicting state coastal aquaculture legislations
Whether shrimp farms constitute hazardous waste discharge under the Environment (Protection) Act, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Hazardous Waste Rules
Application of the precautionary principle and polluter‑pays principle in regulating shrimp farming
Whether a national authority should be constituted to enforce coastal zone protection and oversee compensation

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 15, s. 2, s. 3, s. 5, s. 7, s. 8
Environment Protection Rules, 1989s. 5(3)
Fisheries Act, 1897
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989s. 2(j), s. 5
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 25, s. 2(j), s. 2(k)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

Subjects

environmental lawcoastal regulationshrimp aquaculturepolluter pays principleprecautionary principlesustainable developmentconstitutional lawArticle 32CRZ Notificationhazardous waste

Judgment

A S. JAGANNATH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 11, 1996

B [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

Environment (protection) Act, 1986: Sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 15.

Environment Protection Rules, 1989: Rule 5(3).
c Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 2(j) &
(k) and 25.

Fisheries Act, 1897:

Wild-life Protection Act, 1972 :
D
Forest conservation Act, 1980:

Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989: Rule 2(j)
and 5.
E
Environmental /aw-Coastal Zone Regulation Notification-Restric-
tions imposed on prawn fanning in ecologically fragile coastal ureas-Writ in
public interest seeking directions for prohibiting prawn famiing in coastal
areas-Held setting up of shrimp culture fanns within the prohibited area
under Notification cannot be pennitted-Shrimp culture industry held neither
F "directly related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities'-Dis-
tinction between conventional and modem method of shrimp fanning dis-
cussed-New method poses a serious threat to ecology-In view of damage
caused by acquaculture industry to ecology the fact of large scale potential of
foreign exchange held not relevant-Directions issued by Supreme
G Court-Constitution of Authority for protection of ecologically fragile coastal
areas-Direction to recover compensation from polluter;--Constitution of
Environment Protection Fund-Compensation to workers retrenched from
shrimp culture industries.

Environmental Law-Marine pollution-Sea coast and
H beaches--Degrading environment of-Duty to protecr-f'recautionary prin-
848
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. 849

ciple and polluter pays principle-Implementation of A
Environmental Law-Sustainable development.

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 48-A and 51-A-Protection and improvement of environ- B
ment:--Duty of State-Negligence on the part of authorities responsible for
implementation of provisions-Deprecation of

Article 25~Seventh Schedule-List I Entry l~oastal Zone Regula-
tion notification issued under Central Act-Held would prevail over the law C
made by legislatures of States.

In exercise of its power under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of
the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India issued Coastal Zone Regulation Notification
dated February 19, 1991, whereunder various restrictions were imposed on D
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Chairman,
Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for the uplift-
ment of the weaker sections of Society, filed a writ petition in public
interest under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions from this
Court for (i) stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn E
farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas' (ii) prohibition from nsing
the waste lands/wet lands for prawn farming and (iii) constitution of a
·national coastal management authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas.

Various States and Union Territories filed their replies to the writ F
petitions. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the National Environ·
mental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) visited coastal
areas of various States to investigate whether the ecologically fragile area
was being environmentally degraded and submitted its two reports to this
Court. The Court further directed all the States and Union Territories not G
to give fresh licences or permission for setting up of any acqua-farm in
their respective territories till further orders. With a view to affording
opportnnity of hearing to acqua- farms this Court also directed the
Coastal States and Union Territories to issue notices to them. The report
submitted by Dr. K. Alagarswamy, Director, Central Institute of Brackish
water acqua-culture was also placed on record. This report highlights H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A various environmental and social problems created by coastal acqua-cul-
ture. It also discussed various types of technologies adopted by the acqna·
culture industries in India.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (1) the modern •
other than traditional • techniques of shrimp farming are highly polluting
B and are detrimental to the coastal environment and marine ecology. There-
fore, only the traditional and improved traditional systems of shrimp
farming which are environmentally friendly should be permitted; (ii),
setting up of shrimp farms on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries,
creeks, rivers and backwaters upto 500 meters from the High Tide Line
C (HTL) and the line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is
totally prohibited under para 2 of the Coastal Zone Regulation notifica-
tion; (iii) the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly related to water
front" nor "directly needing foreshore facility" and as such is a prohibited
activity under Para 2(1) of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification; and
(iv) the shrimp culture farms are discharging highly polluting effiuent
D which is "hazardous waste" without obtaining authorisation from the State
Pollution Control Board under Hazardous Waste (Management and Han·
dling) Rules, 1989.

On behalf of shrimp acqua-culture industry it was contended that
(i) a. shrimp farm is an industry which is directly related to water front
E
and cannot exist witliout fore-shore facilities; (ii) certain provisions of the
coastal acqua-culture legislations enacted by various States are not in
consonance with the Coastal Zone Regulation notification issued by the
Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection)
Act; and (iii) almost 100 percent of the produce is exported and as sncb
F the industry bas a large potential to earn foreigl/ exchange.

Allowing the petition with costs, this Court

HELD : I. The purpose or the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal areas and to
G safeguard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast. The setting up
of modern shrimp acqua-culture farms right on the sea coast and con·
struction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se hazardous
and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environment and the
aesthetic uses of the sea coast. The setting up of shrimp culture farms
H within the prohibited area under the CRZ Notification cannot be per·
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. 851
milted. (876-C-E) A
2. Para 2 (viii) of the CRZ Notification prohibits the bunding or
disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar constructions. A
bond is an embankment or dyke. A shrimp farm on the coastal area by
itself operates as a dyke of a pond as it leaves no area from draining of
the flood waters. The construction of the shrimp farms, therefore, violates B
clause (viii) of para 2 of CRZ Notification. (876-F-H]

3. An industry dependent on sea water cannot by itself is an industry
"directly related to water front" or "directly needing fore-shore facilities'.
The shrimp culture industry, therefore, cannot be permitted to be set op C
anywhere in the coastal regulation zone under the CRZ Notification.
(877-E-F)

4. That part of the shore which remains covered with water at the
High Tide and gets uncovered and become visible at the Low Tide is called
'foreshore'. It is not p9ssible to set a shrimp culture farm in the said area D
because it would completely submerge in water at the High Tide. It is,
therefore, obvious that foreshore facilities are neither directly nor indirect-
ly needed in the setting up of shrimp farm. So far as 'water front' is
concerned it is no doubt correct that a shrimp farm may have some
relation to the water front in the sense that the farm is dependent on E
brackish water which can be drawn from the sea. But shrimp cultnre
farming has no relation or connection with the 'water front' thongh it bas
relation with brackish water which is available from various water-bodies
including sea. What is required is the "brackish water' and not the 'water
front'. The material on record shows that the shrimp ponds constructed
by the farms draw water from the sea by pipes, jerries etc. It is not the F
'water front' which is needed by the industry. What is reqnired is the
brackish water which can be drawn from any source including sea and
carried to any distance by pipes etc. Therefore, the shrimJ! cnltnre indnstry
is neither 'directly related to water front' nor "directly needing foreshore
facilities'. [875-H; 876-A-C; 877-D)
G
5. The environmental impact of shrimp culture essentially depends on
, the mode of culture adopted. There is a vast difference between the tradi-
tional methods and the new commercialised system. The traditional ac-
quaculture, including shrimp, is unusually small-scale, using low inputs
and relies on natural tidal action for water exchange. It has no adverse H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A effect on the environment and ecology. The modern method, on the other
hand, is larger in scale and intensive or semi-intensive in nature. It is owned
and operated by commercial and often foreign· owned companies which
mainly export the shrimp. In intensive acquaculture, selected species are
bred using a dense stocking rate. To maintain the very crowded shrimp
B population and attain higher production efficiency, artificial feed, chemical
additives and antibiotics are used. The new trend of more intensified
shrimp framing in certain parts of the country ·without much control of
feeds, seeds and other inputs and water management practices • has
brought to the fore a serious threat to environment and ecology. Thus
traditional and improved traditional types of shrimp farm technologies are
C environmentally benign and pollution free. Other types of technologies •
extensive, modified extensive, semi intensive and intensive. create pollution
and have degrading effect on the environment and coastal ecology. Such
types of shrimp farms cannot be permitted to operate.
(858-H; 865-E-G; 858-H; 859-A; 924-C,D]
D 6. Sea coast and beaches are a gift of the nature to the mankind. The
aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be
maintained. Any activity which has the effect of degrading the environtnent
cannot be permitted. Mangrove forests constitute an important component
of coastal eco·system. They thri7e in tidle estuaries, salt marshes and
E muddy coast lines. Conversion of mangrove to shrimp farms significantly
reduces the natural production of wild capture shrimp as well as other
fisheries. [877·F·G; 920-A]

7. Alagarswamy report highlights various environmental and social
problems created by the Coastal Acquaculture. It is an authentic document
F relating to the functioning of shrimp culture industry in India. This report
highlights drinking water problem, salinisation and destruction of
mangrove by the shrimp culture industry. The increase of stocking den·
sities, heavy inputs of high energy feeds, use of drugs and chemicals result
in the discharge of highly polluted effiuent into the sea, creeks etc. and on
G the sea coast by the shrimp farms. It is, therefore, not possible to accede
to the contention that commercial shrimp farming has no adverse affect
on environment and coastal ecology. (878-A-B]

8. Two reports submitted by NEERI clearly indicate that due to
commercial acqua-culture farming, there is considerable degradation of
H the mangrove eco-systems, depletion of Casurina plantations, pollution of
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. 853
potable waters, reduction in fish catch, and blockage of direct approach to A
the sea-shore. Agriculture lands and salt farms are being converted into
commercial acqua-culture farms. The ground water has got contaminated

- due to seepage of impounded water from the acqua- culture farms. Highly
polluted effluents are discharged by the shrimp farms into the Sea and on
the sea-coast. [906-B-D)
B
9. Expert Committee Report on 'Impact of Shrimp Farms along the
Coast of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry"· (Suresh Committee) has also high-
lighted the impact of shrimp culture farming in various field viz. effiuent
pollution; salinisation; feed and wastes; fertilizers and therapeutants; loss
of mangroves and biodiversity; inpact on agriculture and denial of potable C
water. [906-D-G]

10. The United Nations Report entitled 'Some Ecological and Social
implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia' too gives the dismal
picture regarding polluted waters and depleted fisheries; and natnral
resonrce degradation as a result of shrimp farming. (920-D-F] D

11. All the reports clearly indicate that the expansion of modern
shrimp ponds in the coastal areas has meant that local fishermen could
only reach the breach by trespassing at great risk on shrimp farms or by
taking a long detour. Local people have not only lost access to their fishing E
grounds and to their sources of riverine seafoods and seaweeds, but they
also have to relinquish social and recreational activities traditionally
taking place on the beaches. However, the right of the fishermen and
farmers living in the coastal areas to take their living by way of fishing and
farming cannot be denied to them. (921-E-G; 932-G)
F
12. On the basis of the assessment of socio-economic status of
acquaculture in a systematic manner the NEERI has concluded in its
Report that the damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquacul-
ture farming is higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquacul-
ture produce. TI1e farm-raised production of shrimp is much lesser than G
the wild-caught production. Even if some of the shrimp culture farms
)
which are polluting the environment, are closed the production of shrimp
by environmentally friendly techniques would not be affected and there
may not be any loss to the economy specially in view of the finding that the
damage caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A higher than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce.
While the production increases and export earnings of the industry are
well publicised, the socio-economic losses and environmental degradation
affecting the well-being of coastal population are hardly noticed.
(883-B-C; 933-G-H; 919-E]
B 13. Constitutional provisions contained in Articles 48-A and 51-A as
well as other statutory provisions mandate the State to protect and im-
prove the environment. Legislations like Fisheries Act, 1897, Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972 and Forests Conservation Act, 1980 contain useful
provisions for environment protection and pollution control. Unfortunate-
C ly, the authorities responsible for the implementation of various statutory
provisions are wholly re-miss in the performance of their duties under the
said provisions. (928-D-E]

14. Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act provides punish-
ment for contravention of the provisions of the said Act. The effiuents
D discharged by the commercial shrimp culture farms are covered by the
definition of Environmental pollutant, environmental pollution and haz-
ardous substance. The effiuents discharged by the farms at various places
were in excess of the the prescribed standards. Unfortunately, no action is
being taken by the authorities under the Act. (926-B-D]
E
15. There is nothing on the record to show that the shrimp culture,
owners are even conscious of the statutory provisions which requires them
to obtain the necessary consent/authorisation from the concerned Pollu-
tion Control Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. (928-C-D]
F
16. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted by
Parliament under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII read with Article 253 of
the Constitution of India. The CRZ Notification having been issued under
the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the Law made
G by the legislati;res of the States. (929-A-B)

Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Fornm v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1996) 7
SC 375, referred to. "

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, JT (1996) 2
H 196, cited.
S.JAGANNA1H V. U.0.1. 855
DIRECTIONS : A
(a) The Central Government shall constitute an authority before
January 15, 1997 under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary to
protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, sea shore, water front and
other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the B
shrimp culture industry and the coastal States, Union Territories. The
authority shall be headed by a retired Judge of a High Court. Other mem-
bers shall be appointed preferably with expertise in the field of acquacul-
ture, pollution control and environment protection. The Central
Government shall confer on the said authority the power to issue directions C
under section 5 of the Act and for taking measures with respect to the
matiers referred to in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of sub-
section (2) of Section 3.

(b) The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall
implement "the Precautionary Principle" and "the Polluter Pays" Principles. D

(c) The Shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the
prohibition contained in para 2(1) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp
culture ponds can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation
zone as defined in the CRZ Notification. This shall be applicable to all seas,
bays, esturies, creeks, rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply E
to traditional and improve traditional types of technologies which are
practised in the coastal low lying areas.

(d) All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp
culture ponds operatinwset up in the coastal regulation zone as defined
under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said
F
area before March 31, 1997. A compliance report in this respect shall be
filed in this Court before April 15, 1997.

(e) The farmers who are operating traditional and improved tradi-
tional system of acquaculture may adopt improved technology for in- G
creased production productivity and return with prior approval of the
"authority" constituted by this order.
>
(I) The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest
lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public pur-
poses shall not be used converted for construction of shrimp culture ponds. H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A' (g) No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp cul-
ture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake
and Pullicat lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattue and
Ndapattu). . . ·

(h) Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
B ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter
shall be closed and demolished before 31, 1997. A compliance report in
this respect shall be filed in this Court by the authorities before April 15,
1997.

C (i) Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may he set up/con-
, structcd outside the coastal , regulation zone as defined by the CRz
notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the
prior approval of the "authority" as constituted by this Court. Such in-
. dustries which are alre'i.dy o'perating, in the said ar~a~ shall obtain
D 'authorisation from the "Authority" before April 30, 1997 failing which the
Industry concerned shall stop functioning with effei:t from the said date.
Any acquacnlture activity including intensive and semi-Intensive which has
the effect_ of causing salinity of soil, or the drinking waier or wells and/or ·
by the nse of chemical reeds increases shrimp or prawn production with,
E , consequent increase in sedimentation which, on put-refraction is a poten-
tial health hazard, apart from causing situation turbidity of water courses
and estuaries with detrimental ;;;,plication on local fauna and flora shall
not be allowed by the aforesaid Authority•
•• • >
.•· ~- ',,
. (j) Acquaculture industry/shrimp, culture industry/shrimp culture,
ponds which have been functionin~operating within the coastal regulation
zone as defined by the CRZ .Notification and within 1000 meter from
Chilka and Pulikat lakes shall be liable to compensate the affected person
on the basis of the 'polluter pays' principle•
. , .;

(k) The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after
G giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecol·
ogy/environment ,in the affected ..areas and. shall· also identify the in·
dividuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall
assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The
authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from
H ' the poll'!ters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.O.L 857

shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise. A
(I) The authority shall compute the c_ompensation under two heads
namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A state-
ment showing the amount recovered from each polluter, the persons to
whom the compensation is to be payable shall be forwarded to the Collec-
tor/District Magistrate of the area concerned. B

(m) Violation or non-compliance of the directions of this Court shall
attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(n) The compensation recovered from the polluters shall be
deposited under a separate head called 'Environment Protection Fund' C
and shall be ntilised for compensating the affected persons as identified
by the authority and also for restoring the damaged environment.

(o) The authority, shall frame schemes for reversing the damage
caused to the ecology and environment by pollutions. The schemes so D
framed shall be execnted by the respective State Governments/Union Ter-
ritory Government under the supervision of the Central Government.

(p) The workmen employed in the shrimp cultnre industries which
are to be closed in terms of this order, shall be deemed to have been
retrenched with effect from April, 30, 1997 provided they have been in E
continnous service for not less than one year in the industry concerned
before the said date. Accordingly, they shall be paid compensation as well
as six years' wages as additional compensation. The gratuity amonnt
payable to the workmen shall be paid in addition.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 561 of F
1994.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, V.R. Reddy, Altaf Ahmad, Additional
Solicitor Generals, Ms. Indira Jai Singh, P.P. Malhotra, Kapil Sibal, H.N. G
Salve, Tapas Ray, Shiva Subramaniam, G.L. Sanghi, N. Santosh Hegde,
Jayant Das, V.N. Ganpule, Bhim Rao Naik, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seerua
Midha, K.R.R. Pillai, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anita Shenoy, Vijay· Panjwani,
Krishan Mahajan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Lahiri, Brij K.
Mishra, Ejaz Maqbool, V.B. Nadkarni, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R..
\
>A Anam, H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, S.P. Lenka, Dilip Sinha, J.R. Das,
A.K. Mylsamy, V. Balachandran, K.R. Nambiar, M. Krishanappan, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam,
Asbok Bhan, B.K. Prasad, R.P. Srivastava, K.K. Mani, S. Srinivasan, C.
Srinivasan, (Mrs: A K. Verma and P.O. Tyagi) Adv. for M/s JBD & Co.,
B P.K. Manohar, Vivek Gambhir, Anil Kumar, S.M. Jadhav, D.M. Nargolkar,
C.S. Vaidyanathan, A Mariarputharn, Ajay Kapur, Mrs. Arona Mathur,
P.P. Singh, A. Subba Rao, D.S. Murthy,_ A.D.N. Rao, M.T. George, V.
Krishnamurthy, B. Kanta Rao, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. H. Wahi, E.M.S.
Anam, M.P. Vmod, S.V. Deshpandey, K.L. Taneja, P. Mahale, Rajesh,
Shantha Kumar, lnderjeet Roy, Raj Kumar Mehta, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Dhruv
.C Mehta,· A.M. Khanwilkar, D.N. Mishra, Umesh Bhagwat, G.B. Sathe,
Vmod Bhagat, MA Krishnamoorthy and C. V.S. Rao for the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
KULDIP SINGH, J. Shrimp (Prawn) Culture Industry is taking roots
in India. Since long the fishermen in India have been following the tradi-
tional rice/shrimp rotating acqua culture systelll. Rice is grown during part
of the year and shrimp and other fish species are cultured during the rest
of the year. However, during the last decade the traditional system which,
.E
apart from producing rice, produced 140 kgs. of shrimp per hectare of land
began to' give way to more intensive methods of shrimp culture which
could produce thousands of kilograms per hectare. A large number of
private companies and multi-national corporations have started investing
in shrimp farms. In the last few years more than eighty thousand hectares ·
F of land have been converted to shrimp farming. India's Marine export
weighed in at 70,000 tonnes in 1993 and these exports are projected to
reach 200 thousand tonnes by the year 2000. The shrimp farming advocates
regard acquaculture as potential savior of developing countries because it
is a short-duration crop that provides a high investment return and enjoys
an expanding market. The said expectation is sought to be achieved by
G replacing the environmentally benign traditional mode of culture by semi-
intensive and intensive methods. More and more areas are being brought
under semi- intensive and intensive modes of shrimp farming. The environ-
mental impact of shrimp culture essentially depends of the mode of culture
.._,H adopted in the shrimp farming. Indeed, the new trend of more intensified
shrimp farming in certain parts of the country - without much control of
S.JAGANNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 859

feeds, seeds and other inputs and water management practices has A
brought to the fore a serious threat to the environment and ecology which
has been highlighted before us.

This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India - in public
interest - has been filed by S. Jagannathan, Chairman, Gram Swaraj Move-
ment, a voluntary organisation working for the upliftment of the weaker
B
section of society. The petitioner has sought the enforcement of Coastal
Zone Regulation Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the
Government of India, stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas, prohibition from
using the waste lands/wet lands for Prawn farming and the constitution of C
a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas. Various other prayers have been made in the writ petition.
This Court issued notice by the order dated October 3, 1994. On December
12, 1994, this Court passed the following order :-
·15
"Ministry of Environment r.nd Forests, Govt. of India issued a
Notification dated February 19, 1991, under Clause (d) of Sub-rule
(3)of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 wherein
it was declared that the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries,
creeks, rivers and backwater which are influenced by the tidal
action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide E
Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and
the HTL are Coastal Regulation zone. The Central Govt. has
imposed various restrictions in the said Notification. Mr. Mehta,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioners states that despite
the issue of the Notification unauthorised industries and other F
construction is being permitted by various States within the area
which has been declared as Coastal Regulation Zone. ........... .
Meanwhile we direct all the respondent States not to permit the
setting up of any Industry or the construction of any type on the
area at least upto 500 metres from the sea water at the maximum
High Tide. The above said area i.e. from the High Tide Level upto G
500 metres shall be kept free from all construction of any type".

The Union of India and States/Union Territories of Gujarat, Maharashtra,
Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Goa, Pondicherry, Darnan/Deu,
Andaman/Nicobar and Lakshdeep have filed replies to the writ petitions. H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A This Court on March 27, 1995 passed the following order :-

"This Public Interest petition is directed against the setting up of
Prawn farms on the coastal area' of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
and other coastal States. It is alleged that the coastal States are
allowing big business houses to develop prawn farms on a large
B scale in the Ecologically fragile coastal areas of the States con-
cerned in the violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and
the rules framed thereunder and various other provisions of law.
It is also alleged that establishment of prawn farms on rural
cultivable lands is creating serious environmental, social and
c economic problems for the rural people living along with the
coastal bed specially in the east coast... .... Meanwhile, we direct
NEER!, Nagpur through its Director to appoint an investigating
team to visit the coastal areas of the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Tamil Nadu and give its report to this Court regarding the various
farms which are being set up in the said area.
D
In case the investigating team finds that the ecologically fragile
area is being environmentally degraded then it shall suggest the
remedial measures in that respect. The NEER! team shall keep in
view the Notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of
E Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, issued under the En-
vironment Protection Act, 1986 and also the provision of the Tamil
Nadu Agriculture (Regulation) Act, 1995. The NEER! shall submit
its report before April 30, 1995".

Pursuant to the above quoted order, the National Environmental Engineer-
F ing Research Institute, Nagpur (NEER!) submitted its report dated April
25, 1995 before this Court. This Court further directed NEER! to send an
expert team to the coastal areas in other States and file its report within
two months, the report was filed in this Court within the specified time.
This Court on May 9, 1995 passed the following order :-
G "This matter be listed for final hearing on 4th August, 1995.
Meanwhile we direct that no part of agricultural lands and salt
farw be converted into commercial aquaculture farms hereinafter.
We further direct that no ground water withdrawal, be allowed for
aquaculture purposes to any of the industries whether already
H existing or in the process of being set up. No further shrimp farms
.\"

.... ·. ·. \\

S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 861
or any acquaculture farms be permitted to be set up in the areas A
in dispute hereinafter.

We direct the respective State Governments (the C '!.:\or
concerned or any other Officer appointed by the Governm1 to
provide free access through acquaculture units to the sea c. ·o
the fishermen/tourists after hearing the parties concerned. B

Mr. Mehta has contended that due to these farms occ1
the most of the coastal areas it has become difficult for the vill..~-.o
to search for fresh water, the State Govt may examine this aspect
and provide water by way of tankers wherever it is necessary.
c
So far as the farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu are concerned
they are all represented through Mr. Kapil Sibal and his team. We
direct the State of AP. to send a copy or the order of this Court
to all the acquaculture farms in the State of AP. informing them
that the matter shall be taken up by this Court for final hearing on D
4th August, 1995. This may be done by the State of AP. by the
end of June, 1995.
I
We direct the Pondicherry Administration to send a copy of
the order of this Court to all the aquaculture farms in Pondicherry
informing them that the matter shall be taken up by this Court for E
final hearing on 4th August, 1995. This may be done by the
Pondicherry Admn. by the end of June 1995.

We further direct the Superintendent c.f Police and the Collec-
tor of the areas concerned to see that the order of this Court
specially the directions given are meticulously complied with by all F
the farms."

- Before finally hearing this matter, this Court passed the following order on
August 24, 1995 :-

"We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to G
have full representation before us so far individual aqua-farms in
various States/Union Territories are concerned. We, therefore,
adjourn the hearing to October 17, 1995. Meanwhile, we direct the
coastal States/Union Territory Governments, through their learned
counsel who are present in the Court, to issue individual notices H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A to all the aqua-farms which are located in their respective ter-
ritories. It may be stated in the notices that the same are being
issued under the direction of this Court. It should also be specifi-
cally mentioned that if they want to be heard in these matters by
this Court, they be present through their counseVrepresentatives
in the Court, on the next date of hearing, which is October 17,
B 1995. We also direct the Marine Products Export Development
Authority (MPEDA), through its counsel Mr. Harish N. Salve, to
do the same exercise at its level also. Apart from that, we further
direct all the State Governments/Union Territories to issue public
notices in this respect in daily newspapers which have circulation
c in the coastal areas, informing the aqua-farms regarding the hear-
ing of these matters in this Court, on October 17, 1995. This may
be done on two consecutive days.

Notices and publication be completed within 3 weeks from
today. Meanwhile, we direct all the State Governments/Union
D Territories not to give fresh licences/permission for setting up/es-
tablishment of any aqua-farm in their respective Territories till
further orders."

Coastal Pollution, universally, is an emerging problem. So far as India
E is concerned it has already become a serious environmental problem.
Besides direct dumping of waste materials in the seas discharge through
marine outfalls, large volumes of untreated or semi-treated wastes
generated in various land-based sources/activities ultimately find way to the
seas. The coastal waters directly receive the inland waters, by way of
F surface run- off and land-drainage, ladden with myriad of refuse materials
- the rejects of wastes of the civilisation. Apart from inputs from rivers and
effluent-outfalls, the coastal areas are subject to intensive fishing, naviga-
tional activities, recreations, ports, industrial discharge and harbours which
are causative factors of water quality degradation to varying degrees.
Contrary to the open sea, the changes in the quality of coastal waters, are
G much greater due to river discharges under tidal conditions.

With noticeable increase in marine polb,1tion and the consequential
decline in marine resources, serious concern was expressed in the United
Nations' Conference on Human Environments in Stockhohn (1972) attract-
H ing global attention towards the urgent need of identifying the critically
S.JAGANNATif v. U.0.1. (KULDIPSINGH,J.] 863

polluted areas of the marine environments, specially in coastal waters, for A
urgent remedial actions. The Conference unanimously resolved that the
littoral States should take early action at their National level for assessment
and control of marine pollution from all sources and carry out systematic.
monitoring to ascertain the efficacy of the pollution regulatory actions
taken by them. In the background of the Stockholm Conference and in view B
of 1982 Convention on the "Law of the Sea" defining jurisdiction of ter-
ritorial waters, a model comprehensive Action Plan has been evolved under
the United Nations' Environment Programme (UNEP). Keeping with the
international commitments and in greater National interest, the Govern-
ment of India and the Governments of the coastal States are under a legal
obligation to control marine pollution and protect the coastal- environ- C
ments.

According to the facts placed on record by the Central Pollution
Control Board (the Board, the coastline of India's mainland is about 6000
km long. Out of the total landmass of about 3.28 million sq. kms nearly D
0.15 million sq. kms of coastal land-belt (considering 25 km landward
distance) girdles three sides of the country's sea front which in turn
underlays about 0.13 million sq. km sea-bed upto the territorial limit. The
country being riverine, has 14 major, 44 medium and 55 minor rivers which
discharge annually about 1566 thousand million cubic meters of water E
through land drainage into the seas transporting a wide range of pollutants
generated by land-based activities. Nine out of fourteen major rivers meet
the sea in the east coast (Brahmaputra through Bangladesh) and the
remaining five in the west coast (Indus through Pakistan).

F
Besides land drainage, there are large number of marine coastal
outfalls discharging directly or indirectly industrial and municipal effluents
into the seas. Uncontrolled disposal of land- based waste into the seas,
through rivers and effluent outfalls, is a major cause of pollution of coastal
waters. There are nine coastal States and one Union Territory (UT) in G
India namely, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
;
Pondicherry (UT), Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. More than
one-fourth of the total population of the country is settled in the coastal
areas. The Board in its report regarding "Pollution Potential of Industries
in Coastal Areas of India' dated November, 1995 gives the following data
regarding aquaculture farms : H
I
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A "The effluent generation from aquaculture farms in the east coast
only, in absence of data on west coast farms, is to the tune of 2.37
million cubic meters per day, out of which Andhra Pradesh has
the lion share of about 2.12 million cubic meters per day.... It may
be noted that in all the States, in most cases, the effluent discharge
is indirect (through estuaries, creeks, canals, harbours). It may also
B be noteworthy that the effluents from aquaculture farms are dis-
charged directly/indirectly into the coastal waters practically
without any treatment. For disposal of solid waste, on the other
hand, open dumping and land filling is a common practice."

C In marine pollution control utmost importance has to be given to the
beaches. The beaches and other areas of special interest are to be main-
tained aesthetically and at permissible levels of energetic bacteria. Protec-
tion of ecologically sensitive areas and land used interface resource areas
is equally important. The Central Board for the Prevention and Control of
D Water Pollution (Central Board) in its report "coastal pollution control
series COPOCS/l/1982" recommended as under :-

"- the mangrove forest at Pichavaram, the bird sanctuary and forest
areas at Point Calimere and Coral reef at Mandapam are ecologi-
cally sensitive areas warranting special watch and preservation.
E
- recreational coastal portions of some sectors of the stretch under
investigation such as Marine and Elliot beaches at Madras,
Mahabalipurarn, Pondicherry beach at Pondicherry and. Poom-
puhar at the confluence of the river Cauvery with the sea are to
be maintained at appropriate quality level.
F
- Continuous monitoring of the coastal waters especially heavy
metals and pesticides in the biota should be carried out to detect
possible biomagnification of some toxic chemicals and to provide
early warning."
G The Central Board in its report "Coastal Pollution Control Series
COPOCS/5/1986-81'' sought protection of the ecologically fragile areas in
the following term• :-

"The mangrove forest and the wildlife sanctuary in Coringa Island,
H the Pulicat lake and the bird sanctuary at Nelapattu are the
S.JAGANNATH v. U.O.l. (KULDIPSINGH,J.] 865

ecologically sensitive areas warranting special attention and A
r:
protection. No industrial activity which may pose a danger to the
ecosystem in these areas should be permitted.

At Pulicat Lake Area, Machilipatnam, Naupada and lchapuram,
salt pan irrigation is pracfoed. No water polluting industry should
be allowed nearby. B

The domestic sewage and the industrial effluents entering the
Kolleru Lake through various drains be properly treated so that
no pollutants enter the coastal waters through Upputeru drain".

Shrimps are basically marine. Shrimps are also called Prawns. In
c
commercial jargon, marine prawns are referred to as shrimps and fresh-
water ones as prawns. Prawns and shrimps are invertebrates and are
decaped crustaceans. Sea is their home and they grow by adulthood and
breed in the sea. The progeny start their life by drifting into estuaries and
such other brackishwater areas for feeding. In about 4-6 months the larvae D ·
grow into adolescence and go back to their real home of birth, the sea.

Aquaculture has been practised for many centuries by small farmers
and fisherfolk in Asia to improve their living conditions. However, there is
a vast difference between the traditional methods and the new commer-
cialised system. The traditional aquaculture, including shrimp, is usually
E
small- scale, using low inputs and relies on natural tidal action for water-
exchange. In some countries, such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand, there
is a tradition of rice/shrimp rotating, with rice grown part of the year and
shrimp and other fish species cultured the rest of the year. Chemicals,
antibiotics and processed feeds are not used in the traditional method. In F
this low-yield, natural method, the harvest is small but sustainable over long
periods. It has no adverse affect on the environment and ecology. The
modern method, on the other hand, is larger in scale and intensive or
semi-intensive in nature. It is owned and operated by commercial and often
foreign-owned companies which mainly export the shrimp. In intensive G
aquaculture, selected species are bred using a dense stocking rate. To
maintain the very crowded shrimp population and attain higher production
efficiency, artificial feed, chemical additives and antibiotics are used.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (PAO) - an organ of United
Nations Organisation (UNO) - published a report in April, 1995 on a H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Regional Study and workshop on the Environmental Assessment and
Management of Aquaculture Development. Copy of the report has been
placed on record by Mr. Santosh Hegde learned counsel for the State of
Karnataka. India was one of the 16 countries participated in the workshop.
Dr. K. Alagarswami, Director, Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquacul-
ture, Madras presented a paper titled "the current status of aquaculture in
B
India, the present phase of development and future growth potential",
(hereinafter called Alagarswami report). it has been published as an An-
nexure to the workshop-report published by the FAQ. Para 5.1.2 of
Alagarswami report gives various types of technologies adopted by the
aquaculture industry in India. It would be useful to reproduce the same
C hereunder :

"5.1.2 Types of technology - changes in technology with time.

Traditional: Practised in West Bengal Kerala, Karnataka and Goa,
also adopted in some areas of Orissa, Coastal low-living areas with
D tidal effects along estuaries, creeks and canals; impoundments of
vast areas ranging from 2-200 ha in size, characteristics : fully
tidally-fed; salinity variations according to monsoon regime; seed
resource of mixed species from the adjoining creeks and canals by
auto-stocking; dependent on natural food; water intake and drain-
E ing managed through sluice gates depending on local tidal effect;
no feeding; periodic harvesting during full and new moon periods;
collection at sluice gates by traps and by bag nets; seasonal fields
alternating paddy (monsoon) crop with shrimp/fish crop (inter
monsoon); fields called locally as bheries, pokkali fields and
khazan lands.
F
Improved traditional: System as above but with stock entry contra~
supplementary stocking with desired species of shrimp seed (P.
monodon or P. indicus); practised in ponds of smaller area 2-5 ha.

Extensive : New pond systems; 1-2 ha ponds; tidally fed; no water
G exchange, stocking with seed; local feeds such as clams, snails and
pond-side prepared feed with fishmeal, sova, oilcake, cereal flour
etc.; wet dough ball form; stocking density around 20,000/ha.

Modified Extensive System as above; pond preparation with tilling,
H liming and fertilisation; some water exchange with pumpsets; pellet
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 867

feeds indigenous or imported; stocking density around 50,000/ha. A

Semi-intensive New pond systems; ponds 0.25 to 1.0 ha in size;
elevated ground with supply and drainage canals; pond prepara-
tion methods carefully followed; regular and periodic water ex-
change as required; pond aerators (paddle wheel) at 8 per ha;
generally imported feed with FCR better than 1:1.5 or high energy B
indigenous feeds; applications of drugs and chemicals when need
arises; regular monitoring and management stocking density 15-
25/ml.

Intensive Ponds 0.25-0.30 ha in size; management practices as C
above; 4 aerators in each pond; salinity manipulation as possible;
central drainage system to remove accumulated sludge; imported
feed; drugs and chemicals and used as prophylactic measures;
strict control and management; stocking density 20-35/ml.

Changes in technology : As already indicated. The initial concept D
and practice was to develop tide-fed systems, this slowly gave way
to a pump-fed systems. Presently, the emphasis is on seawater
based fanning systems for P. monodon with a water intake system
extending far into the sea with submerged pipelines, pier system
and gravity flow. From sandy clay soils, the present coastal farms E
are located in sandy soils also with Seepage-control provisions."

Alagarswarni report further states as under :

"The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of
India, issued a Notification S.O. No. 114 ((b) in 1991, under 'The F
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986" declaring coastal stretches as
Coastal, Regulation Zones (CRZ) and regulating activities .ffi the
CRZ. This Notification has implications for coastal aquaculture,
particularly those activities within 500 m from the High Tide Line ...
No regulations to control the use of chemicals and drugs exist.
Pollution Control Board general regulations on effluent discharges G
include hazardous substances, but they are not specified to
> aquaculture. In some regions, there is indiscriminate use of chemi-
cals and pesticides, particularly in shrimp farms... Under the
Notification of Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, each
maritime State is expected to have its own Coastal zone manage- H
·-
868 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A ment plan, which would consider aquaculture zonation require-
ments, along with shoreline development. The zone up to 500
metres from the waterline along the sea is restricted against any
construction activity."

Alagarswamy report High lights various environmental and social
B problems created by the Coastal Acquaculture. The relevant part of the
report is as under :-

"Physical factors

Shrimp farming along the coastal area of the whole country is
c developing at a rapid rate. Huge cyclone protection dykes and
peripheral dykes are constructed by the shrirop farmers. In inany
cases as in Kandleru creek (Andhra Pradesh), the farm areas are
the natural drainage areas for floods. Due to physical obstruction
caused by the dykes, the natural drain is blocked and flood water
D accumulates in the hinterland villages. Protests are being made by
people in some of the villages against such dykes. The ponds are
constructed right on the bank of the creeks without leaving any
area for draining of flood water.

Right of passage of coastal fishermen
E
The shrimp farms do not provide access to the beach for traditional
fishermen who have to reach the sea from their villages. As farms
are located and entry is restricted, the fishermen have to take a
longer route to the sea for their operations. This is being objected
to by traditional fishermen.
F
Drinking water problems

The Corporate sector has purchased vast areas adjoining the
villages which, in some cases, include drinking water public wells
G of the villages. The villagers cannot use these wells anymore as
they are located in private land owned by the farmers. This is
causing social problems.

Salinisation

H It is reported that salinisation of land is spreading further
S.JAGANNATII v_ CT.OJ_ [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 869

landwards and the wells yields only saline water. In Tamil Nadu A
and Andhra Pradesh protests have been voiced against salinisation.
Some of the socially conscious shrimp farm operators are providing
drinking water to the affected villages by laying a pipeline from
their own freshwater source wherever available. Apart from wells,
the agricultural farms adjoining the shrimp farms are reported to
B
be affected. However, there is increasing conversion of paddy
fields as in the Bhimavaram area of Andhra Pradesh and even on
the fringes of Chilka Lake into shrimp farms.

Mangrove areas

The status report on mangroves of India published by the Ministry
c
of Environment and Forests (GO!, 1987) is shown in Table 5. In
the earlier years, vast areas of mangrove were destroyed for
agriculture, aquaculture and other uses. In the more recent years,
the mangroves have been protected by law. However, the satellite
imagery pictures show destruction of mangroves in Krishna and D
Guntur Districts of Andhra Pradesh for construction of shrimp
• farms. Gujarat State is planning major shrimp culture programmes
in the Narmada region adjoining Gulf of Cambay. Protection of
mangroves should receive attention".
E
Alagarswarni report further indicates that the demand for shrimp seed is
growing with the expansion of shrimp culture and hatchery production is
unable to meet it. Exploitation of natural seed resources is growing un-
abated, particularly in West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Large
quantity of fry by-catch are discarded by the fry collectors because their
value is insignificant. The report states "elimination of fry in the fry by-catch F
is not only detrimental to the predators thriving on them, but it also creates
an ecological imbalance".

Agitations by the environmentally conscious people of the coastal-
areas against pollution acquaculture technologies has been noticed by G
Alagarswamy report as under :-

> People's awareness

People in general have become aware of the environmental issues
related to aquaculture. A current case in point is the agitation H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A against a large commercial farm coming up in Chilka Lake (Oris-
sa). People have demanded an BIA of the project. People in
Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh have raised environmental
issues and called for adoption of environmentally-friendly tech-
nologies and rejection of "imported" technologies from regions
which have suffered environmental damage. Protests have been
B voiced by the local people in Tuticorin area in Tamil Nadu. Both
·print and visual media take up environmental issues with a great
deal of zeal. This appears to augur well for regulating coastal
shrimp farming with eco-friendliness".

C The intensive-farming technique and the pollutants generated by
such farming have been noticed by Alagaswamy in the following words :-

"In intensive farming, stocking densities are on the increase, in
one instance, P. indicus was stocked at 70 post larvae/ml, almost
reaching the levels of Taiwan before the disease outbreak in 1988.
D This necessitates heavy inputs of high energy feeds, the use of drugs
and chemicals and good water exchange. The organic load and
accumulation of metabolites in the water drained into the sea
should be very high as could be seen from the dark-brown colour
and consistency of the drain water."
E The Alagaswamy report further states that paddy fields are being
converted to shrimp farms, as in some parts of Andhra Pradesh (e.g.
Bhimavaram). Some paddy lands along the fringe of Chilka Lake have been
lost to shrimp farming.

The report suggests future management strategies - quoted
F
hereunder - for farms and Government in resolving any conflicts or
environmental problems :

"As shrimp farming is developing fast, the following strategies have
been developed for avoiding problems which have arisen in other
G countries (or reducing their impact) :

1. India needs to boost production of shrimp through aquaculture
with environment and development as a unified motto.

2. Since the area available is vast, this can be achieved by applica-
H tion of environmentally-friendly technologies for optimal produc-
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KUl...DIPSINGH,J.] 871

tion rates against maximum production rates. A

3. Sustainable development of shrimp aquaculture should be
guided by the principles of social equity, nutritional security, en-
vironmental protection and economic development with a holistic
approach to achieve long-term benefits.
B
4. New definitions and parameters of extensive, semi-intensive and
intensive culture systems as suited to Indian conditions. and
Government policies rather than copying models of other countries
(particularly those which have rushed and suffered) and the
development of guidelines thereof. c
5. Diversification of species among shrimps and to integrate fish
wherever possible to. suit the different agro- climatic and aquatic
· zones. of the country.

6. Careful development of Coastal Zone Management Plans under D
CRZ to meet the requirements of coastal aquaculture develop-
ment plans with some flexibility (as required) for specific areas.

7. Identification of aquaculture zones or careful consideration and
provision of buffer zones against possible impact on other land
uses; also intermediate buffer zones within aquaculture zones. E

8. Consideration of the living, social and vocational needs of local
people in villages/towns in aquaculture plans in order to avoid
. conflicts.

9. Development of sets of regulations on use/ban of drugs and F
chemicals, including antibiotics, in hatcheries and farms; on
abstrac\ion of groundwater and salinisation problems.

10. Development of standards for effluent discharge as applicable
to local conditions. G
11. Development of viable technologies for secondary aquaculture
> to gainfully utilise nutrient enriched farm effluents an encourage
farmers to adopt such technologies with the necessary support.

U. In view of the fact that coastal farms are located generally in H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A remote areas and cannot be monitored by external agencies on a
reasonable effective basis, farmers/group of farmers should equip
themselves with facilities to monitor possible important parameters
at periodic intervals and maintain such records for their own
benefits and for production to inspecting agencies.

B 13. Brackishwater Fish Farmer Development Agencies to be
strengthened in all respects, including environmental management
and disease diagnosis, prevention and control, through appropriate
training and setting up district level laboratories for essential
analytical and diagnostic work.
c
14. Manpower development at managerial and technical level.

15. Research-extension-farmer group meet for appropriate tech-
nologies and feedback.

D 16. Effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations, use of
nets and fishing in any specified water for a period not exceeding
two years. Thus, legal provisions were made on fisheries matters
in India nearly a century ago."

E Alagarswami's report identifies salinisation of land, salinisation of drinking
water wells, obstruction of natural drainage of flood water, passage of
access to sea by fishermen and public, self-pollution of ponds, pollution of
source water, destruction of mangroves land subsidence and pressure on
wild seed resources and consequences thereof as environmental issues in
shrimp culture. Para 6.2 of the report lists the following preventive
F measures:

"6.2 PREVENTION

(i) Aquaculture units cansing harmful changes to the environ-
11'.ent; and
G
(ii) Non-aquaculturists from modifying the environment to the
detriment of aquaculture production units.

1. Enforcement of legal provisions under the relevant Acts of
H the government.
. S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 873

2. CRZ regulations to consider specific needs of aquaculture A
as an expanding production activity and the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Plans of the States/Union Territories to carefully plan taking
into consideration present situation and future needs.

3. Early development of regulations on permissible levels of
most sigoificant parameters of water quality keeping in view the B
limited intervention of aquaculture for promoting growth of stock
in the medium.

4. Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental
Monitoring Plan (EMP) to be insisted upon for larger units and C
sell assessment/monitoring for smaller units, subject to verification
at inspection.

5. Zonations and appropriate siting of farms; not to prolitferate
indiscriminately but to develop in a planned manner for sustaining
production (Alagarswarni, 1991). D

6. More hatcheries to be encouraged and supported to meet
seed demands to reduce pressure on wild seed resources.

7. Feed mills to maintain quality of feeds and to ensure water
stability as required; self/external inspection mechanism to be E
introduced to maintain specific standards.

8. Mangrove forests not to be touched for aquaculture pur-
poses.11

The FAO report -based on Alagarswami report states the impact of F
aquaculture on the environment, in India, as under :-

"The impact of aquaculture on the environment are as follows :

By shrimp culture : Loss of agricultural land and G
mangroves, obstruction of natural drains, salinisation,
destruction · of natural seed • ~sources, use of drugs and
chemicals, and extraction of groundwater, Social ccnflicts
have arisen. 11

Algarswami report - quoted by us extensively - 1s an authentic H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A document relating to the functioning of shrimp culture industry in India. It
has rightly been suggested in the report that sustainable development
should be the guiding principle for the shrimp aquaculture. The industry
must develop under the unified motto of Environment and Development.
Environmentally-friendly technologies are to be adopted with a view to
B achieve .optimal production. The report calls for a ban on the use of drugs,
chemicals and antibiotics in the shrimp culture farms. The report clearly
indicates that except the traditional and improved traditiona~ the other
methods of shrimp aquaculture are polluting and as such may have an
adverse imJ>act on the environment.

C Mr. M.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken us
through the NEER! reports and other voluminous material on the record.
He has vehemently contended that the modern • other than traditional ·
techiques or shrimp farming are highly polluting and are detrimental to the
coastal environment and marine ecology. According to him only the tradi·
tional and improved traditional systems of shrimp farming which are
D environmentally friendly should be permitted. Mr. Mehta has taken us
through the Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Government
of India under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the
Act) (CRZ Notification) and has vehemently contended that setting up of
shrimp farms on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers
E and backwaters upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the
line between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL is totally prohibited
under Para 2 of the said notification. The relevant part of the notification
is as under:

'2. Prohibited Activities :
F
The following activities are declared as prohibited within the
Coastal Regulations Zone, namely :

(i) Setting up of new Industries and expansion of existing
industries, except those directly related to water front or directly
G needing fore-shore facilities.

(ii) Manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazard-
ous substances as specified in the Notifications of the government
of India in the Ministry of Environment & Forests No.s. 0.59.l(E)
H dated 28th July, 1989, S.O. 966(E) dated 27th November, 1989 and
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. (KULDIPSINGH,J.] PJ/5

GSR 108/(E) dated 5th December, 1989 : A
(iii) Setting up and expansion of fish processing units including
warehousing (excluding hatchery and natural fish drying in per-
mitted areas);

(v) Discharge of untreated wastes and effluent from industries, B
cities settlements. Schemes shall be implemented by the concerned
authorities phasing out the existing practices, in and within a
reasonable time period not exceeding three years from the date of
this notification.

(viii) land reclamation, bunding or disturbing natural course of
c
sea water with similar obstructions, except those required for
control of coastal erosion and maintenance clearing of waterways,
channels and for prevention of sandbars and all except for tidal
regulators. Storm water drains and structures for prevention of
salinity ingrease and for sweet water recharge. D

(x) harvesting or drawal of ground water and construction of
mechanisms therefore with 200 m or HTL; in the 200 m to 500 m
Zone it shall be permitted only when do manually through ordinary
wells for draining, horticulture, agriculture and fishering." E

According to Mr. Mehta the shrimp culture industry is neither
· "directly related to water from" nor "directly needing fore-shore facility"
and as such is a prohibited activity under Para 2(1) of CRZ Notification.
Mr. Kapil Sibal on the other hand has argued that a shrimp farm is an
industry which is directly related to water front and cannot exist without F
fore-shore facilities. Relying upon Oxford English Dictionary Mr. Sibal
contended that "water front" means land abetting on the sea, that part of
a town which fronts on a body of water. According to him "foreshore in
terms of the said dictionary means the part of the shore that lies between
the High Tide and the Low Tide. According to Webster Comprehensive G
Dictionary, International Edition the expression 'foreshore means "that
part of a shore uncovered at low tide".

It is, thus, clear that the part of the shore which remains covered with
water at the High Tide and gets uncovered and become visible at the Low
Tide is called "foreshore". It is not possible to set up a shrimp culture farm H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A in the said. area because it would completely sub-merge in water at the
High Tide. It is, therefore, obvious that foreshore facilities are neither
' .
directly nor indirectly needed in the setting up of a shrimp farm. So far as
"water front" is concerned it is no doubt correct that a shrimp farm may
have some relation to the water front in the sense that the farm is depend-
ent on brackish water which can be drawn from the sea. But on a close
B scrutiny, we are of the view that shrimp culture farming has no relation or
connection with the 'water front' though it has relation with brackish water
which is available from various water-bodies including sea. What is re-
quired is the "brackish water" and not the 'water front'. The material on
record shows that the shrimp ponds constructed by the farmers draw water
C from the sea by pipes, jetties etc. It is not the 'water front' which is needed
by the industry, what is required is the brakishwater which can be drawn
from any source including sea and carried to any distance by pipes etc. The
purpose of CRZ notification is to protect the ecological fragile coastal
areas and to safe guard the aesthetic qualities and uses of the sea coast.
D The setting up of modern shrimp aquaculture farms right on the sea coast
and construction of ponds and other infrastructure thereon is per se
hazardous and is bound to degrade the marine ecology, coastal environ-
ment and the aesthetic uses of the sea coast. We have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that the shrimp culture industry is neither "directly
related to water front" nor "directly needing foreshore facilities". The
E setting up of shrimp culture farms within the prohibited areas under the
CRZ notification cannot be permitted.

Para 2 (viii) of the CRZ Notification quoted above, prohibits the
bunding or disturbing the natural course of sea water with similar obstruc-
F tions. A bond is an embankment or dyke. Alagarswami report in para 4.3.2
(quoted above) has specifically mentioned that huge cyclone protection
dykes and peripheral dykes are constructed by the shrimp farmers. The
report further states that due to physical obstruction caused by the dykes
the natural drain is blocked and flood water accumulated in the hinterland
and villages. The report notices that the shrimp ponds are constructed right
G on the bank of the creeks without leaving any area for draining of flood
waters. A shrimp farm on the coastal area; by itself operates as a dyke or
a bund as it leaves no area for draining of the flood waters. The construc-
tion of the shrimp farms, Therefore, violate clause (viii) of para 2 of the
CRZ Notification. In view of the findings by Alagarswarni report it may be
H useful to hold an inquiry/investigation to fmd out the extent of loss oc-
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.]

curred, if any, to the villages during the recent cyclone in the State of A
' Andhra Pradesh because of the dykes constructed by the shrimp farmers.

- Annexure-1 to the CRZ Notification contains regulations regarding
Coastal Area Classification and Development. The coastal stretches within
500 m of HTL of the landward side are classified into four categories, B
namely, CRZ-1, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV. Para 6(2) of the CRZ
Notification lays down the norms for the development or construction
activities in different categories of CRZ areas. In CRZ-III Zone agricul-
ture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, playfields, forestry, and salt
manufacture from sea level may be permitted upto 200 m from the high
tide line. The aquaculture or shrimp farming has not been included as a c
permissible use and as is prohibited even in this zone. A relevant point
arises at this stage. Salt manufacturing process like the shrimp culture
industry depends on sea water. Salt manufacturers can also raise the
argument that since they are wholly dependent on sea-water theirs is an
industry "directly related to water front" or directly needing fore-shore D
facilities". The argument stands negatived by inclusion of the salt manufac-
turing industry in CRZ-III Zone under para 6(2) of the CRZ notification
otherwise it was not necessary to include the industry therein because it
could be set-up any where in the coastal regulation zone in terms or para
2(1) of the CRZ Notification. It is thus obvious that an industry dependent E
on sea water cannot by itself is an industry "directly related to water front"
or "directly needing fore-shore facilities". The shrimp culture industry,
therefore, cannot be permitted to be set up any where in the coastal
regulation zone under the CRZ notification.

We may examine the issue from another angle. Sea coast and beaches
F
are a gift of the nature to the mankind. The aesthetic qualities and
recreational utility of the said area has to be maintained. Any activity which
has the affect of degrading the environment cannot be permitted. Apart
from that the right of the fishermen and farmers living in the coastal areas
to eke their living by way of fishing and farming cannot be denied to them. G

... Alagarswami report states that "the shrimp farms do not provide excess to
the beach for traditional fishermen who have to reach the sea from their
villages. As farms are located and entry is restricted the fishermen have to
take a longer route to the sea for their operation. This is being objected
by traditional fishermen". H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A The Algarswami report further highlights drinking water problem,
salinisation and destruction of mangrove by the shrimp culture industry.
The relevant paragraphs have already been quoted above. The increase of

B
stocking densities, heavy inputs of high energy feeds, use of drugs and
chemicals result in the discharge of highly polluted effluent into the sea,
creeks etc. and on the sea coast by the shrimp farms. It is, therefore, not
possible to agree with Mr. Sibal that commercial shrimp farming has no
-
adverse affect on environment and coastal ecology.

We may at this stage refer to the two investigation reports dated April 23;
1995 and July 10, 1995 by NEER! regarding the Ecological Fragile coastal
C areas of India.

The Report dated .April 23, 1995 states that a 13 member team of
scientists, lead by Dr. AS. ·Bali and Dr. S.K. Kaul inspected the shrimp
farms situated on the ecological fragile coastal areas in the States of
Andhra·Pradesh and Tamil Nadu between April 10 and April 19, 1995. It ·
D is further stated that the coastal areas in the Union Territory of Pondicher-
ry were also inspected by the team. Regarding the CRZ Notification, the
report states as under :-

"The MEF's notification dated February 19, 1995 stipulates that
the aquacukure farms on the coastal areas should not be con-
E
structed within 500 m from the high tide line {HTL) of the seas.
The hatcheries, however may be constructed between 250 and 500
m from HTL of the sea.

The inspection team observed during field investigations that
F the MEF's norms for location of aquaculture and hatcheries have
be~n violated in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and
the union territory of Pondicherry...... There is an urgent need to
ensure scrupulous implementation of the provisions made in the
MEF's notification dated February 19, 1991 in the States and
Union Territory inspected by the team. In addition, the damage
G caused to the land and water ecosystems by coastal aquaculture
activity, as detailed in the report, must be restored to its original
ecological State. The cost for eco- restoration of the coastal fragile
area must be borne by individual entrepreneurs of the coastal
aquaculture farms in keeping with the Polluter-Pays principle .
H ..... Further, no activity of commercial coastal aquaculture should
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 879

be undertaken even beyond 500 m HTL unless a comprehensive A
and scientific Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study has
been conducted by the entrepreneur, and the Environmental
Management Plan approved by the respective State Department
of -Environment. Pollution Control Board, Shore Development
Authority, and also by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. B ·
Appropriate terms of reference for EIA have been incorporated
in.the report."

Regarding the socio-economic assessment of acquaculture in the
area, the report gives the following finding :-
C
"A socio-economic assessment of aquaculture in the ecologically
fragile coastal areas in the States of AP and TN has been con-
ducted by the NEER! team. This assessment, detailed in the
report, indicates that the cost of ecological and social damage far
exceeds the benefits that accrue out of coastal aquaculture ac-
tivities.11 D
· The adverse impacts of acquaculture farming on the environment and the
ecologically fragile areas in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
union territory of Pondicherry have been stated in the report as under :-

"3.0 Observations on the impacts of Aquaculture Farming on E
Ecologically Fragile Areas in States of AP, TN, and Union Ter-
ritory of Pondicherry.

Coastal aquaculture units are situated within 500 m of high Tide
Line of the sea. T\lis is not in consonance with the MEFs notifica-
F
tion dated February 19, 1991.

It is a common practice to convert agricultural land, and land
under said production, into coastal aquaculture units which infr-
inges the fundamental rights to life and livelihood.
G
Conversion of agricultural farms and salt making lands into com-
mercial aquaculture farms is rampant in the fragile coastal areas
of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pon-
dicherry.

Brackish aquaculture units have been installed in deltaic regions H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A which is a ecologically unsound practice.

Natural saline. canals which travel from sea to the mainland are
being used for brackish aquaculture farming. The flow of the
natural saline canals is being obstructed due to prawn farming
activity which has resulted in the spread of brackish water over
-
B agricultural farms resulting in loss of agricultural lands, and
potable water.

Villages situated along the sea coast, deltaic regions, and natural
saline canals are under threat due to diversion of land to aquacul-
ture farms.
c
Traditional fishermen have lost their landing grounds for fish catch.

Coastal aquaculture has resulted in loss of mangrove eco-systems
which provide protection against cyclones and other natural
D hazards, and which provide natural habitats for spawning of marine
biota. Indiscriminate obstruction of mangrove areas in and around
the creeks, estuaries, and sea has resulted in loss of natural breed-
ing grounds for shrimps.

Natural Casuarine plantations have also been destroyed. This may
E result in increasing damage from cyclons, and intrnsion of saline
water into mainland.

Coastal aquaculture farms have not been scientifically designed
and located, resulting in excessive ecological damages.

F No proper peripheral drainage has been provided around the
aquaculture farms.

The saline water intake and effluent discharge points from
aquaculture farms are located in close vicinity, resulting in con-
G lamination of feed water to the aquaculture units threatening their
productivity.

Three types of saline water supply systems are in vogue for the '1 ·~
aquaculture farming, viz.

H - direct pumping from the sea, creek, and estuary.
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 881
- direct pumping from deep sea with jetties A
- using high tides of sea for carrying saline water through ex-
cavated canals.

These activities for feed water supply to the aquaculture ponds
have resulted in : B

- loss of fish catch (except in the case of feed water supply through
sea water canal system)

- loss due to damage of fishing nets.
c
- degradation of fragile coastal land.

Large commercial aquaculture farms have installed fencing in and
around the farms resulting in blockage of free access for the
fisherman to the sea shore.
D
The wastewater discharge from the aquaculture farms released
into the creeks is not properly flushed out of the creek during low
tides thereby leads in the accumulation of pollutants in the creek,
affecting the quality of intake water to aquaculture farm with a
concommittant loss in productivity, and damage to creek ecosys-
tem. E

Disappearance of the native fish species due to increase in salinity
of the creek water has been observed by the team, and reported
by the fishermen. Increase in salinity has also reduced the ingress
of shrimp seedlings in the creek.
F
Indiscriminate catch of natural shrimp seedlings from the coastal
waters, creeks, and estuaries has resulted in reduction of their
availability, which in turn has forced the commercial aquaculture
farmers to import the seeds.
G
Unscientific management practices adopted by the commercial

-. aquaculture farmers, and improper design cf aquaculture farms
including inadequate drainage systems have resulted in skin, eye,
and water borne diseases in the contiguous population.

Commercial aquaculture farm owners have not contributed to any H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A social infrastructure facilities for the villagers.

Employment avenues of the contiguous population have consider-
ably reduced due to the commercial aquaculture farming. The
unemployed villagers are seeking employment in nearby towns and
cities.
B
. Owners of the commercial aquaculture farms are using various
means to encroach upon the Government lands and also forcing
the agricultural land owners/salt making villagers to sell their lands.
In addition, the fishermen are also being forced to migrate to other
coastal areas. 11
c
Regarding the socio-economic status of the ecologically fragile coastal
areas in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the report states
as under:-

"During the inspection of the aquaculture units located on the
D
Ecologically Fragile Coastal Areas of AP and TN, the inspection
team collected data and information, and discussed the issues
related to socio-economic status of the affected people with the
farmers, fishermen, NGOs, and Government officials.

E The basic socio-economic issues are presented in Table 4.1 which
also lists the parametric values in the assessment of the damage
caused by the aquaculture units located in the Ecologically Fragile
Coastal Areas. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 present the socio-economic
assessment of aquaculture in the Ecologically Fragile Coastal Area
of the States of AP and TN.
.F
Tables.4.2 and 4.3 bring forth that the damage caused to ecology
and economics by the aquaculture farming is higher than the
earnings from the sale of coastal aquaculture produce."

The NEER! has, thus, given a positive finding that the damage
G caused to ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher
than the earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. The
finding is based on the assessment keeping in view fourteen parameters
listed in Tables 4.2 & 4.3 regarding the States of Andhra Pradesh and
.-
Tamil Nadu respectively. The parameters taken into consideration are
H land, equivalent wages for the farmers to be earned, equivalent amount of
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 883

agricultural produce (rice, husk), loss due to.cutting of Casuarina in terms A
of fuel, loss in terms of grazing grounds, loss involving diseases, loss caused
by cyclones due to cutting of Casuarina forests, loss due to desertification
of land, loss in terms of potable water, total loss due to mangrove destruc-
tion, loss in fishing income, loss due to damage of fishing nets and man-
days lost due to non- approachability to sea-coast. These losses are
B
computed in money and are then compared with the total earnings from
the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. On the basis of the assessment
of socio-economic status of acquacwture in a systematic manner the
NEERI has. reached the conclusion that the damage caused to ecology and
economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the earnings from
the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. c
Paras 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the report clearly show the environmental degrada-
tion caused by the shrimp culture farming by its adverse impact on surface
water, contamination of soil and ground water and destruction of mangrove
vegetation. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder :-
D
"6.1 Impact on Surface Waters

Mangrove vegetation is important in protecting marine and
terrestrial ecosystem. This vegetation is also important as it
removes the pollutants like carbon, nitrogen, phosphate and other E
nutrients; as also certain toxic compounds. The importance of
mangrove plants especially Vettivera zaizonoids is known in reduc-
ing the impact of pollution due to discharge of aquaculture pond
effluents, and the Cavery Delta Farmers are no propagating the
cultivation of this species in estuaries. Mangrove vegetation also
acts as a barrier of floods, and provides spawning grounds and F
• nesting places for fishes; it also supports avian fauna {birds) thus
· maintaining the natural ecosystem.

The observations on the water quality in the aquaculture ponds
show that the pond water harbors a dense algal bloom compared
to the water in estuaries, creeks or sea indicating eutrophic nature G
of pond effluent. When water in large volumes, from the ponds is
. discharged during flusing of ponds, in a creek or estuary, the
pollutants remain stagnated in the estuary or near-sea coast due
to the typical tidal activity in creeks. As a result, the raw water
source to the ponds gets contanrinated in course of time. The H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A wastewater discharged from the ponds warrant proper treatment .;.
before discharge. Uncontrolled discharge of wastewater triggers a
series of deleterious impacts, e.g.

With the increase in eutrophication levels, there is a shifting in
dominance of phytoplankton flora in pond effluent from diatoms
B to blue-green algae. Decomposition of dead blue-green algae may
lead to the generation of toxic substanGes, eg. ammonia, hydrogen
sulphide etc. Further, . some of the blue-greens also excrete
biotoxins in large quantities which are toxic to aquatic animals, ie.
prawns in ponds or fishes in estuaries or coastal waters. Large
c amount of blue-green algae was recorded by the inspection team
in Sirkali area (eg. S&S Industries & Enterprises Ltd.; High Tide
Sea farms) and Killai area (Aqua Gold Shrimp Farm; MRV Aqua
Farm; Mahi Aqua Farm). The presence of Oscillatoria, Microcys-
tis and some other filamentous blue-green algae is undesirable in
the pond effluent as they chock the gills of fishes.
D
- The suspended solids released from the ponds are laden with
unconsumed food and other organic ·contaminants. Accumulation
of these organics in the intake water creates problems in the intake
water quality when the intake and discharge points are in close
proximity.
E
6.2 Contamination of soil and ground water

The shrimp farms are constructed well above the ground levels.
Seepage of po.nd effluent in the surrounding fields was noted by
the inspection team in a number of farms. Seepage of pond effluent
F
deteriorates the soil quality in the adjoining aquacultural fields. It
has also contaminated potable water in surrounding villages.

Deterioration of ground Water quality in villages that over one
km away from the pond sites was not noticed. This observation is
G based on analysis of bore well water at three sites by the inspection
team. This observation justified the locational constraints on
aquaculture farms in coastal areas. .,.~

6.3. Destruction of Mangrove vegetation

H The inspection team noticed destruction of mangrove vegeta-
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.j 885

tion at most of the prawn farming sites for the development of A
shrimp farms.

Significant destruction of mangrove forest was observed near
the Aqua Gold shrimp farm at village Vellar in Killai taluk of South
Arco! district similarly on Pichavarum estuary in village
Pichavarum in Killai taluk of South Ar cot district of TN, the shrimp B
farms are constructed by clearing Mangrove vegetation Mangrove
in Kuchipalarn village is also facing threat due to the expansion of
prawn farming activity.

The final conclusions and recommendations are in para 8.0 of the NEER! C
report which is as under :-

"8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations on the attenuation of the
Impact of Aquaculture Farming on Ecologically Fragile Areas in
States of AP, TN, and Union Territory of Pondicherry.
D
Socio-economic assessment of aquaculture in the ecologically
fragile areas in the States of AP and TN reveals that the coast of
ecological and social damage far exceed the benefits that accrue
out of the coastal aquaculture activities.

The MEF's norms for location of aquaculture and hatcheries E
have been violated in the States of AP, TN, and Union Territory
of Pondicherry.

The current practice of installation of coastal aquaculture farms
within 500 m HTL violates the fundamental rights and livelihood
of people in the States AP and TN, and the Union Territory of F
Pondicherry.

The State of AP has adopted twenty point guidelines as ad hoc
measures for management of aquaculture in the district of Nellore.
These guidelines have not been made mandatory in the State of G
AP as a whole. Also, these guidelines do not address all social,
economic, and ecological aspects of coastal habitats.

The State Government of TN has enacted a Bill to provide for
the regulation of coastal aquaculture on April 10, 1995. This Bill
is not in consonance with the MEF's notification dated 19, 1991 H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A as it allows the construction of aquaculture units within 500 m of
HTL of the sea.

The cost of eco-restoration of the coastal fragile area must be
borne by the individual entrepreneur of the commercial aquacul-
ture farms in keeping with the polluter-pays principle.
B
No commercial coastal aquaculture activity should be under-
taken even beyond 500 m HTL unless a comprehensive and scien-
tific environmental impact assessment (EIA) study has been
conducted by the entrepreneur, and the environment management
c plan (EMP) approved by the respective State Department of
Environment. Pollution Control Board, Shore Development
Authority, and also by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Agricultural lands are being converted into commercial
aqnaculture farms, which causes unemployment to the landless
D labourers and also in loss of cultivable land.

Commercial aquaculture farms are being installed near the
cultivated lands aud the salt water from the farms damages the
productivity of the adjoining lands.
E
Groundwater also gets contaminated due to seepage of im-
pounded water from the aquaculture ponds.

Desertification of cultivable land is on the increase due to
salinity intrusion.
F
Due to commercial aquaculture farms, there is a loss of

- mangrove ec.osystems
- casuarina plantations
- grazing grounds for cattle
G - potable water to contiguous population
- fish catch
- fishing nets
- agricultural produce
- manpower loss due to non-approachability of fishermen to sea
H shore directly.
S.JAGANNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 887

There is a perceptible increase in the diseases of skin and eye, A
and water borne diseases in the contaguous population.

The designs of the aquaculture farms are inadequate. No
provision has been made for wastewater treatment facility enabling
recycling and re-use ?f wastewater.
B
Prohibition on conversion of agricultural lands and salt farms
into commercial aquaculture farms must be enforced with imme-
diate effect.

No groundwater withdrawal must be allowed for aquaculture
purposes .. c
Free access through aquaculture unit to the sea coast must be
provided to the traditional fishermen.

No aquaculture farm based on brackish water should be in- D
stalled on inland brackish water bodies.

Wild seed collection from creek and sea must be prohibited.
Seed must be procured from hatcheries. If seed collection is
noticed it must immediately be seized and dumped back into the
creek. fl
An eco-restoration fund must be created by collecting the
stipulated fees from the owners of aquaculture farms. In addition,
one per cent of total export earnings per annum must also be
collected from commercial aquaculture farm owners and used for
rejuvenation of coastal. eco-system with special reference to plan- F
talion of mangroves and common eco- sensitive zones. The was-
tewater treatment system with reuse and recycle must be installed
by all units. The smaller units can form a co-operative and treat
their water through common effluent treatment plant. The
aquaculture units must be closed down if the wastewater treatment G
system is not functioning to its design efficiency."

The second NEER! report dated July 10, 1995 states that a 19
member team of scientists lead by Dr. A.S. Ball and Dr. S.N. Kaul in-
spected the shrimp farms situated on the ecologically fragile coastal areas
in the States of West Bengal, Orissa, Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A and Gujarat during May 20 and June 10, 1995. The summary of salient
comments in the report regarding acqua-farming in the State of West
Bengal is as under :-

"* organic pollution in creeks and estuaries with respect to BOD

B * microbiological deterioration of water quality

' accumulation of organic carbon and heavy metals m the
sediments of shrimp farms

• Shanon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic
c contamination

* borewell water characteristics near Mis Index Port Ltd., Sar-
beria, Basanti, North 24-Paraganas, show intrusion of salinity
in drinking water source

D * conversion of land, and traditional fish farm at Mis Index Port
Ltd., North 24-Paraganas

* conversion of land, traditional fish farm, and mangrove plan-
tation at Mis Sundarban Aquatics, South 24-Paraganas

E • violation of CRZ regulations regarding high tide line (HTL)
has taken place at Mis Sundarban Aquatics, South 24-
Paraganas. In addition, violations of CRZ for setting up the
aquafarm on creeks have taken place at the following places:

Mis Index Port Ltd., North 24-Paraganas
F
Mis Sundarban Aquatics, South 24-Paraganas

All shrimp farms developed by BWFD at Ramnagar, Mid-
napore."

G The comments regarding the acqua-farming in the State of Orissa by the
NEERI team are as under :-

"* Organic pollution in creeks and estuaries with respect to
BUD

H * deterioration of microbiological water quality
S. JAGANNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 889

* accumulation of organic carbon and heavy metals in the A
sediments of shrimp farms

* Shannon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic
contamination

* characteristics of borewell water samples near Mis Sundeep B
Aquatics, District Bhadrak and M/s Suryo Udyog Pvt. Ltd.,
District Balasore, show intrusion of salinity into drinking
water

• conversion of cultivable land for the establishment of C
aquafarms/hatcheries in all districts

• violation of CRZ regulations by all aquafarms on creeks in
the districts of Balasore and Bhadrak. Hatcheries have been
constructed/under construction within 200 m of high tide Line
(HTL) in contravance of CRZ regulations." D
The status of acqua-farming in the State of Kerala as indicated in the
NEER! report is as under :-

"The comments on aquafarming in the State of Kerala presented
in the footnotes of Tables 2.21.2 through 2.2.1.7. Summary of the E
salient comments is given hereunder:

• organic pollution in river, creeks and estuaries

• deterioration of microbiological water quality
F
• accumulation of organic carbon and heavy metals in the
sediments of shrimp farms

• Shanon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic
contamination
G
• well water characteristics in the vicinity of Mis Agalapuzha
aquafarm. Kozhikode show the intrusion of salinity in drink-
ing water source

• conversion of land, and traditional fish farm by M/s vasu
Aquafarms at Kozhikode - H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A • conversion of land, traditional fish farm, and mangrove plan-
tation by Mis West Coast Aquafarms Irioavu, Kannur

• violation of CRZ regulations regarding the location of
aquafarms on creeks has taken place at the following sites:

B Mis Consolidated Aquafarm, Poyya, Trissur

Mis Jaladhi Aquafarm, Cherchi

Mis Keetodiyal Aquafarm, Arookutty Alleppey

c M/s Mejovi Fisheries, Iranavu, K.annur 11
•

The report farther indicates the status of acqua-culture io the State of
Karnataka as under :·

"Organic pollution in river, creeks, and estuaries
D
Shanon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic con·
tarnioation

well water characteristics io vicinity of Mis Raja Ram Bhat
Aquafarm, Hanmav, Kumta show the intrusion of salinity io driok·
E ing water source

conversion of agricultural land ioto shrimp farms was observed at

Mis Popular Aquafarm, Iallur, Kundapur

F Mis Raja Ram Bhat Aquafarm, Hanmav, Kumta

Mis Shri Arya Durga Aquafarm, Karwar

destruction of mangrove vegetation by Mis Popular Aquafarm,
Iallur, Kundapur was observed by the iospection team
G violation of CRZ regulations by aquafarms situated on the creek
of kazadi river at Kundapur, Hanmav creek at Kumta, and Hgnash-
ree creeks were noted by the inspection team."
.
The comments of the NEER! report regarding acqua farms in the State of
H Goa are as under :-
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 891
organic pollution in river, estuary and discharges from ponds A
• Shanon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic
contamination

• well water characteristics in vicinity of Mis Govt. Prawn Farm,
Choraho indicate salinity intrusion B
• conversion of agricultural land into shrimp farm was observed
by the inspection team at M/s Sky Pak Aquafarm Ltd.,
Paliyam, Goa

• violation of CRZ regulations by all the aquafarms on the C
creeks, viz. Masem creek at Kankun, and Chahora at Pernem
were observed by the inspection team."

Summary of the salient comments on acqua-culture in the State of
Maharashtra is as under :-
D
'* organic pollution in river estuary and discharges from ponds

• microbiological deterioration of water quality

* accumulation of organic carbon and heavy metals in the
sediments of shrimp farms E
-
• Shanon Weaver index values less than 3 indicate organic
contamination

• conversion of agricultural land into shrimp farms
F
• violation of CRZ regulations regarding location of shrimp
farm on creeks, viz Dharamtar, Satpati, and Dahanu."

The comments regarding the State of Gujarat are as under :-

'organic pollution in river, estuary and discharges from ponds G

• destruction of mangrove and shrubs in the marine zone bv M/s
GFCCA, Onjal and M/s Sea Crest Pvt. Ltd., Mendhar

violation of CRZ regulations for setting up the shrimp farms on
the creeks, viz. Kanai, Ambika, and Puma.' H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Para 3 of the NEERI report dated July 10, 1995 gives in detail the impact
of aquaculture farming on ecologic_ruly fragile coast.U areas of India :-

"3.0 Observations on the impacts of Aquaculture Farming on
Ecologic<tlly Fragile Coastal Areas of India

B 3.1 East Coast

• The shrimp farms at Rarnnagar, Midnapur district are located
right on the creek, and therefore, are not in consonance with the
CRZ regulations

c • No wastewater/sediment treatment facilities exist at any of the
aquaculture farms

• No direct withdrawal of water from creek/estuary

• No conversion of land has taken place except in cases of M/s
D Index Port Ltd., North 24-Paraganas and M/s Sundarban Aquatic
Farms Ltd., South 24-Paraganas

. • wild shrimp seedling collection by villagers including children is
a common practice
E • M/s Index Port Ltd. North 24 Paraganas has created the follow-
ing problems :

- design of aquaculture farm is not proper, and no wastewater/sedi-
ment treatment facility exists in this shrimp farm
F - intensive mode of operation creates wastewater problems.
Presently, there is no treatment facility existing for reuse and
recycle of treated wastewater

- deposition of clay in the intake water reservoir and no proper
G mechanism exists for its disposal

- seepage from the bunds create additional problems around the
farm

- inspection team observed that groundwater in the vicinity of this
H aquaculture farm has become s<tline
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 893

- conversion of agricultural land, and traditional fishing farm A
- barbed wire fencing along the periphery of the farm has resulted
in restriction to free access for the farmers, fishermen and cattle
to the creek

- M/s Sundarban Aquatic Farms Ltd., South 24-Paraganas has B
created the following problems :

- conversion of agricultural land, traditional fish farming, and
mangrove plantation

- the aquafarm is located below ground level, therefore, it is C
difficult to assess the seepages from this farm unless peizometers
are installed around the aquafarm

- a well designed sedimentation tank is being used as a waste water ·
treatment system. However, it is not adequate. Necessary arrange- D
men(s have to be made for recycle and reuse of wastewater

- no provision exists for treatment of sediments

- the location of the aqua-farm is not as per MEF notification
dated February 19, 1991, keeping in view high tide line, and E
minimum distance from the creek

The important areas of environmental concern regarding
shrimp farming in the State of Orissa are :

World Bank Aided Projects p
- Narendrapur, Bhadrak District

World Bank aided project comes within the national park area.
Therefore, it is desirable that this project proposal must be
dropped. It was also informed to the inspection team that two
private shrimp farms are in operation at present n,ear the proposed G
World Bank Aided Project which must be closed immediately, in
view of proximity of the national park

- Beidipur, Bhadrak District

There are plans to construct large shrimp farms. It is necessary to H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A mention that this area is profusely covered with wild sea weeds,
which has direct relationship with the ecology of the marine biota,
Keeping this aspect in view, a detailed EIA is required before
finalizing the development of shrimp farms in the area which must
include private farms in the region.
B In addition, there is a salt dyke which prevents the flow of sea
water into the agricultural lands. It is worth mentioning that more
than 50 shrimp farms, 1 ha. each have come up in this area, this
leads to conversion of fertile agricultural lands into brackishwater
based shrimp farming resulting salinity, intrusion and desertifica-
c tion of land.

- Jagatjore - Banapada, Kendrapara District

Construction work of shrimp farni is in progress. Mechanised
systems for excavation, and construction are being used. In addi-
D tion, inhabitants are prosecuted. There is a signpost "Trespassers
will be prosecuted". It was informed to the inspection team by the
nearby villagers that this place was used for agriculture. Farmers,
fishermen, and cattle had free access to the nearby creeks. Now it
has been limited to a large extent. In addition, the inspection team
was informed about indiscriminate cutting of mangrove bushes
E around the area. This project must be reviewed critically keeping
Bhitar Kanika Wild Life Sanctuary in view.

Local entrepreneurs have started small shrimp farms of about 1
ha each. This will cause waterlogging problems in the area. Finally,
the high tide line (HTL) just touches the saline dykt,. Therefore,
F
world Bank project proposal and other shrimp farms fall within
500 m of HTL, and do not conform to the MEFs notification dated
February 19, 1991.

• Chilka Lagoon
G The silt carried by two main rivers, viz. Daya and Bhargabi gets
deposited in the lagoon. There is little exchange of water from the
sea because the mouth of the lagoon (35 km long) has been blocked
by three factors,viz.

H - silt
S. JAGANNAlH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 895

- improper mixing, and A
- large clusters of shrimp farms hinder the passage of water into/out
of the lagoon.

The bird sanctuary at Nalaban has also been affected by siltation
and shrimp farming activities. 35 km of the canal month of the
lagoon needs immediate attention, because the exchange of sea B
water into and from the lagoon is vital from ecological considera-
tions. In addition, deposited silt has to be removed, shrimp farms
must be closed down immediately to restore the Chi!ka lagoon, to
its original ecological condition by application of scientific manage-
ment practices.
c
• Subarnarekha Mouth

A large number of shrimp farms have come up on both sides of
the lower reaches of the Subarnarekha river to utilise the tidal
brackish water as observed by the inspection team. It was reported D
to the inspection team by local people that this has resulted in
water logging in upper reaches of Subarnarekha river.

• The inspection team observed that the shrimp farming is at least
three times more than what has been presented by the State Govt
of Orissa.
E
• All the shrimp farms do not observe the MEF notification dated
February 19, 1991. The creek/estuarine water based shrimp farms
are also not observing the CRZ guidelines of MEF.

Agricultural land is being converted to shrimp farming because of p
Land Reform Act of Govt. of Orissa.

• Artificial creeks are being constructed to allow high tides of
creek/estuarine water into the large reservoir. In addition, this
factor must result in flooding of low lying areas.
G
• Reservoirs ·act as a setting cum concentration basin, therefore,
it is necessary sometimes for the shrimp farmers to dilute this water
by withdrawing groundwater resulting in depletion of groundwater
resources in the nearby villages. In addition, groundwater has
become saline. This is confirmed by the situation in Adhuan village
in Bhadrak district. H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A • The shrimp farming has resulted in several social problems viz.

- denial of free access to fishermen
- denial of job opportunities
- conversion of agricultural land to shrimp farming
- social displacement
B - salination of groundwater
- reduction in grazing ground or cattle, and free access to creek/es-
tuarine water

• Wild shrimp seedling collection is still in practice. This will have
c detrimental effect on the ecology of the sea, creek, and estuarine
waterbodies.

• Direct pumping from the creek/estuarine water system is being
practised. This results in reduction of fish catch and must be
stopped immediately.
D
• No shrimp farm had any type of wastewater and sediment
treatment systems including hatcheries.

• All hatcheries are located within 200 m of the HTL in con-
travance of the MEFs notification dated February 19th, 1991. It
E is necessary to stop the commissioning of all new hatcheries which
are not being constructed as per CRZ regulations.

• Inttle points 'and wastewater discharge channels of the prawn
farms are nearby. This is not a scientific water management of
shrimp farms.
F
• It has been observed by the inspection team that some shrimp
farms have barbed wires along the periphery of project site, e.g.

- Mis Deep Sun Culture Pvt. Ltd.
G - Mis Surya Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
- M/s Manas Prawn Farm

Therefore, there is no free access to creek and estuarine water
for the fishermen and cattle.

H 3.2 West Coast
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULD!P SINGH,J.) 897
* The shrimp farming activity in the west coast is mostly confmed A
to the traditional extensive type of fanning. Limited number of
commercial shrimp farms having areas more than 5 ha, working
on the semi-intensive type have been installed in the coastal areas
since last 3 years.

* Though in limited numbers, prawn farms working on the semi- B
intensive type specifically in the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra,
and Gujarat are situated within 500 m of high tide line of the sea,
which is not in consonance with MEFs notification dated February
19, 1991.
c
* Incidence of conversion of agricultural land into coastal aquacul-
ture units, which infringes the fundamental right to file and
livelihood, could be noticed in States of Karnataka (Kumta taluk),
Maharashtra (Ratnagiri district, and Palghar taluk) and in Gujarat
(Valsad district).
D
* In States situated on the west coast of India brackish water
aquaculture units have been mainly installed along the estuaries
and river banks, where impounded backwater is being used for
shrimp farming. Such practices of extensive type of farming may
not have significant adverse impact on environment due to the fact E
that limited quantities of brackish water are required for recharg-
ing these ponds, and the wasterwater generation is negligible.
However, this practice of utilisation of backwaters will prove to
be unsound if carried out for large scale farms using semi-intensive
l}pe of farming.
F
* Villages situated along the sea coast, and backwater zones,
specifically at Gunda, Kumta and Karwar (Karnataka), Palghar
and Dahanu (Maharashtra), and Valsad (Gujarat) are under threat
due to conversion of land into aquaculture farms.
G
* In the State of Karnataka, the inspecting team observed that M/s
Murudeshwar Food and Export Ltd. prawn aquafarm units are
located within 100 m of HTL.

The intake and discharge points of Mis Samudra Aquafams and
Mis Skyline Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Kagil, Kumta are very close H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A to each other which may create problems of contamination in the
ponds. The prawns grown in these farms were reported to be
affected by viral infection. Disposal of sediments from the ponds
was also observed to be carried out on the side of the river.

* It was also observed by the inspecting team in the State of
B Karnataka that aquafarm of M/s Rajaram Bhat Pvt. Ltd. at Hon-
nava in Kumta taluk has been installed on the periphery of the
village. The bunds constructed for making the ponds have
obstructed the free flow of storm water, and domestic wastewater
from the village to sea and this has created health hazards for the
c villagers. Intrusion of saline water in the soil was also observed,
and reports on damage in coconut plantations in nearby areas were
also received. Contamination of drinking water sonrces due to
saline water intrusion was observed.

D
* In the State of Karnataka, M/s Agnasana Aquafarm Pvt. Ltd. has
come up adjacent to a school in village gunda, and the constructed
bund of the pond touches the compound of the school. Seepage
of Saline water from the bund and subsequent damage to the
foundation of the school building, and damage to coconut plants
in nearby areas was observed. Such practices of allowing the ponds
E to come up near residential and public utility places must be
stopped inunediately.

* Coastal aquacultnre has resulted in loss of mangrove ecosystems
to a limited extent on the west coast. However, significant destruc-
F tion of mangroves could be noticed in the coastal areas of districts
of Karwar & Kumta (Karnataka), Palghar & Shrivardhan
(Maharashtra), and Valsad (Gujarat). Since the mangrove ecosys-
tems provide natnral habitat for spawning of marine biota, the
practice of indiscriminate destruction of mangrove ecosystem due
to installation of shrimp must be stopped.
G
* No proper peripheral drainage has been provided around the
aquacultnre ponds following semi-intensive mode of farming in the
States of Kerala, Karnataka & Maharashtra, and the waste water
from the ponds was observed to be discharged into the receiving
H bodies without treatment.
S.JAGANNAIB V. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 899

* The brackish water intake and effluent discharge points for the A
ponds are located in close vicinity resulting in contamination of
feed water of the aquaculture units. The situation is predominant
at Kumta (Karnataka), Palghar (Maharashtra), and Valsad
(Gujarat), where a large number of medium and large aquafarms
have been installed.
B
• Since large number of medium and big farms have been installed
011 the coastal areas at places mentioned above, the wastewater
discharged into the creeks and back water zones is not properly
flushed out during low tide, thereby, affecting the intakes water
quality of aquaculture farms. C
• The situation in the State of Goa has not reached such an
alarmed situation as yet due to limited number of farms, and
abundant quantities of backwater available in the riverine zones of
Zuari and Mandavi rivers. However, future expansion of the
. shrimp farming practices warrant careful control in view of tourism D
potential of the State.

* Shrimp farming activity in the State of Gujarat is presently
confined to the coastal areas of Valsad, Bharuch, and Surat, two
large commercial shrimp farms are proposed to be installed in the
Jarnnagar district where salt farms are being operated currently. E
Sanctions for ·such installations warrant careful consideration to
avoid damages to the highly ecosensitive coral reef zones near this
coast.

The conclusions and recommendations as given in para 7 of the F
NEERI report are as under:-

"7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations on the attenuation of
adverse Impacts of Aquaculture Farming on Ecologically Fragile
Coastal Areas.
G
7.1 East Coast

• The shrimp farming activity in east coast in mostly confined to
the traditional and extensive mode. However, a large number of
commercial shrimp farms have started functioning on modified
extensive, semi-intensive; and intensive modes since last three years H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A • The large scale shrimp farms and hatcheries have violated CRZ
notification of MEF dated February 19, 1991 in the States of West
Bengal and Orissa. I
* Incidence of conversion of agricultural land into coastal aquacul-
ture land into coastal aquaculture units which infringe upon the
B fundamental rights to live and livelihood were noticed particularly
in the State of Orissa.

* It is desirable to establish aquaculture farms on modified exten-
sive mode. Semi-intensive and intensive mode of aquaculture must
not be adopted in the States of West Bengal and Orissa.
c
• Maintenance of quality of the feed, and stocking of healthy seed
from the government approved hatcheries associated with ap-
propriate water management practices warrants proper attention
in the prawn farming activities of the coastal areas.
D
* The proposed guidelines for shrimp farming in the State of West
Bengal do not address all Socio-economic, and ecological siatu.<
of coastal habitats.

• The State of Orissa has not formulated any guidelines refated to
E aquaculture practices.
•
* The cost of eco-restoration of the coastal fragile area must be
borne by the individual entrepreneurs of the commercial farms in
keeping with the polluter pays principle with specific reference to.

F - Sunderban Mangrove/Littoral Forest, West Bengal
- Chilka Lagoon, Orissa
- Bhifar Kanika Wild Life Sanctuary, Orissa
- National Park, Orissa
- Subarnarekha Mouth, Orissa
G No commercial coastal aquaculture activity should be under-
taken even beyond 500 m HTL unless a comprehensive and scien-
tific environmental impact assessment (EIA) study has been made
by the entrepreneur, and the environment management plan
(EMP) approved by the respective State Department of Environ-
H ment, Pollution Control Board, and also by the MEF.
S.JAGANNATH v. U.O.l. [KULDIPSINGH,J.) 901
* Agricultural lands are being converted into commercial aquacul- A
ture, which causes unemployment to the landless labourers and
also in loss of cultivable land.

* Grouodwater also gets contaminated due to seepage of im- ·
pounded water from aquaculture farms.
B
Due to commercial aquaculture farms, there is a loss of :

- mangrove ecosystem
- grazing grounds for cattle
- potable water to contiguous population
- fish catch c
- agricultural produce
- economic loss due to non-approachability of fishermen to
creek, estuary and sea directly

* The designs of the aquaculture farms are inadequate. No D
provision has been made for wastewater treatment facility enabling
recycling and re-use of wastewater in shrimp farms and hatcheries
to minimise water exchange. In addition, there is a necessity to
treat deposited sediments from the shrimp farms. Sediments can
be converted into manure for land application on or after proper
treatment E
* Prohibition on conversion of agricultural land must be enforced
with immediate effect.

* Wild seed collection from creek, estuary, and sea must be
prohibited. Seed must be procured from hatcheries. F
* An eco-restoration fund must be created by collecting the stipu-
lated fees from the owners of aquaculture farms. In addition, one
percent of total export earnings per annum must also be collected
from commercial aquaculture farm owners, and used fro rejuvena- G
tion of coastal eco-system. The wastewater treatment system includ-
ing sediment control with reuse and recycle must be installed by all
units. The smaller units can for a co-operative, and treat water
through common effluent treatment plant. The aquaculture units
must be closed down if the wastewater treatment system including
sediment control is not functioning to its design efficiency. H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9S.C.R.

A • A strict vigilance by the State Departments of Fisheries and
Pollution Control Board is required to keep a check on pollution
abatement measures, it may be mentioned that even a small one
ha shrimp farm can be tailored to function on any mode of ......
production modified-extensive, semi, intensive, and intensive.
Therefore, strong control measures for production and pollution
B
(wastewater and sediments) are essential.

•Water (from sources such as creek, estuary or sea) cess must be
charged from the shrimp farm owners.

c * Cultivable lands must not be converted for aquaculture. There
is a perceptible difference between cultivable and not cultivated
land. Thus, even if aquaculturist buys agricultural land and keep
.them hallow for say 2 or 3 years, that does not mean that the land
has become non-cultivable. Currently almost all the farms that exist
are cultivable lands except those in Midnapur district (7 aquafarms
D in wastelands). Even those farmers who do not sell their land to
prawn farm owners, are affected due to lack of drainage from
paddy fields which in turn cause flooding of the crop during rainy
season.

E • The location of shrimp farms in Midnapur district on wasteland
developed by the Department of Fisheries, Govt. of West Bengal
fulfills all scientific conditions except :

- CRZ guidelines for creeks
- Wastewater & sediment management practices, and
F - Mode of operation which is mostly semi- intensive and
intensive

•There are two commercial aquaculture units in the State of West
Bengal, viz. Mis Sundarban Aquatic Farm Ltd., and Mis Index
Port Ltd., which are violating CRZ regulations of MEF dated
G
February 19, 1991 as discussed hereunder.

- Mis Sundarban Aquatic Farms Ltd.: Conversion of agricultural ....
land & traditional fish farm, and destruction of mangrove planta-
tion have taken place. In addition, this farm falls within 500 m from
H HTL. Further, CRZ regulations for location of aquaculture farm
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 903

near the creek have also been violated. A
- Mis Index Port Ltd.; Conversion of agricultural land & traditional.
fish farm have been taken place. Groundwater has become saline
around the farm. Shrimp farms are not well designed resulting in
seepage, Barbed wire fencing has restricted free access to farmers,
fishermen and cattle to the creek. Jn addition, CRZ regulations B
for location of aquaculture farm near the creek have also been
violated.

No treatment facilities have been provided by both the farms.

* It is necessary to review the World Bank aided projects and c
commercial shrimp farms in and around Chilka Lagoon, keeping
in view the MEF norms dated February 19, 1991 in the State of
Orissa, viz.

- Narendrapur project must be abandoned as it is within the D
National Park. Also the existing commercial farms in operation
must be closed down.

- Bideipur project requires EIA studies. Several farms have
come up on the other side of the saline dyke which must also be
included for evaluation in the EIA studies. E

- Jagatjaore-Banaspada project is within 500 m HTL, Farmers,
fishermen and cattle earlier had free access to the near by creek,
which has been limited to a great extent due to the commercial
shrimp farming activity. Also indiscriminate cutting of mangrove F
bushes has been reported.

This project must, therefore, be reviewed critically keeping Bhitar
Kanika Wild Life Sanctuary in view

• The commercial shrimp farms in Chilka Lagoon must be aban- G
. doned keeping in view the ecological condition of the lagoon and
also the location of National Bird Sanctuary.

7.2 West Coast

• MEFs norms for location of aquaculture farms and hatcheries H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A have been violated at many places in the States situated on west
coast of India.

' The current practice of installation of coastal aquaculture farms
within 500 m HTL violates the fundamental right and livelihood
of people in the coastal States
B
' The States of Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat have
neither formulated nor adopted any guidelines in consonance with
CRZ-notification, Ministry of Environment & Forests (MEF),
Govt. of India for scientific control and management of the shrimp
farms in the respective States. These States must formulate and
c adopt legislative Acts for proper management and regulation of
existing shrimp farms in the respective States.

'The State Government of Goa has enacted a bill dated November
17, 1994 in order to regulate, promote and manage the shrimp
D farms in this State, in a scientific manner. However, this bill is not
in consonance with the MEF notification dated February 19, 1991
as it allows the construction of aquaculture units within 500 m of
HTL of the sea. The bill is limited to the guidelines pertaining to
the allotment of lands for the entrepreneurs.

E ' The cost of eco-restoration of the coastal fragile area must be
borne by the individual entrepreneur of the commercial aquacul-
ture farms in keeping with the polluter pays principle

* No commercial coastal aquaculture activity should be under-
taken even beyond 500 m HTL unless a comprehensive and scien-
F tific environmental impact assessment (BIA) study has been
conducted by the entrepreneur, and the environment management
plan (EMP) approved by the respective State Department of
Environment Pollution Control Board, Shore Development
Authority, and also by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
G
' Commercial aquaculture farms are planned to be installed near
the cultivated lands in all the States of west coast. Salt water from
the farms results in damage to the productivity of the adjoining
lands.

H ' Groundwater also gets contaminated due to seepage of im-
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 905,

pounded water from the aquaculture ponds. A
• Desertification of cultivable land can result in increased saline
intrusion on west coast.

Due to commercial aquaculture farms, there is a loss of :
B
- mangrove ecosystems
- casuarina plantations
- grazing grounds for cattle
- potable water to contiguous population
- fish catch
- fishing nets
c
- agricultural produce
- economic loss due to non-approachability of fishermen to
sea shore directly

• The designs of the aquaculture farms are inadequate. No D
provision has been made for wastewater treatment facility enabling
recycling and re-use of wastewater.

* Prohibition on conversion of agricultural lands and salt farms
into commercial aquaculture farms must be enforced with the
immediate effect. E

• Wild seed collection from creek and sea must be prohibited.
Seed must be procured from hatcheries.

• An eco-restoration fund must be created by collecting the stipu-
lated fees from the owners of aquaculture farms. In addition, one F
percent of total export earnings per annum must also be collected
from commercial aquaculture farm owners and used for rejuvena-
tion of coastal eco-system with special reference to plantation of
mangroves and common eco-sensitive zones. The wastewater treat-
ment system with reuse and recycle must be installed by all units. G
The smaller units can form a co- operative and treat their water
through common effluent treatment plant. The aquaculture units
must be closed down if the wastewater treatment system is not
functioning to its design efficiency.

• Drainage canals must be constructed around the existing ponds H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A to collect seepage from the pond which will prevent the intrusion
of saline water into the adjoining agricultural fields & residential
areas. The design and construction of the drainage canal/bund
must be undertaken scientifically based on the topographical fea-
tures of the area. This will avoid the flooding of the' area with saline
water, and will help in restoration of hygienic sanitary conditions
B in the nearby residential areas.

The two NEERI reports clearly indicate that due to commercial acqua-cul-
ture farming there is considerable degradation of the mangrove eco-sys-
tems, depletion or Casuarina plantations, pollution of potable waters,
C reduction in fish catch, and blockage of direct approach to the sea-shore.
Agriculture lands and salt farms are being converted into commercial
acqua-culture farms. The ground water has got contaminated due to
seepage of impounded water from the acqua- culture farms. Highly pol-
luted effluents are discharged by the shrimp-farms into the sea and on the
D sea-coast.

A report titled "Expert Committee Report on Impact of Shrimp
Farms Along The Coast of Tamil Nadu and Pondichcrry" has been placed
on the record. Justice H. Suresh, a retired Judge of Bombay High Court,
Dr. A. Sreenivasan, Joint Director of Fisheries (retd.), Dr. A.G.K. Menon, .
E an Ichthyologist, Mr. V. Karuppan IA.S. (retd.), Dr. M. Arunachalam,
Lecturer, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manommaniam Sundaranar
University, Tamil Nadu and Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy, a Medical Surgeon
constituted the "expert committee" (Suresh Committee). Although the
investigation by the Suresh Committee was done at the instance of "com-
p plaint against shrimp industries" but keeping in view the status of the
committee members and the Factual Data collected and relied upon by the
committee it would be useful to examine the same. The Suresh Committee
visited various villages in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and gave its findings
based on the evidence collected by the Committee. Some of the findings
of Suresh Committee are as under :-
G
"The farmers of Perunthottam told us that they have sold nearly
140 acres of their own lands to the Bask company and 40 acres
to the Bismi company. Evidence was also given to us showing in
the lands purchased by Bask Farms, where three or two crops were
H being cultivated. It also revealed that the percentage of yield was
S.JAGANNA1B v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.]

as much as 60%. Details regarding this are found in Annexure 15. A
The Bismi company has erected a pipe line till the boundary of
the farm for draining sea water. It is yet to be connected to the
sea.

The Bask company is situated at a distance of 150 m from the
scheduled caste households. Bask Aqua Farm is situated within B
600 m from the sea and the distance of Bismi Aqua farms is just
25 m from the sea. During our visit, we found Bask farms engaged
in construction of Prawn farms on agricultural lands that had been
purchased (Photo No. 23 & 24) .... Representative of Perunthottam
village also shared before the Expert team that the yield obtained C
from the fields adjacent to prawn farms were affected. Moreover
the villagers have lost their access to potable water as the water
tables have become alkaline due to the seepage of sea water from
the prawn farms. Bask farms have been using ground water for
nearly two years crop. The Managing Director confirmed this D
before the Expert team."

The Committee visited Pichavaram Vedaranyam on July 13th/15th, 1995
and observed as under :-

"It was observed that the palmyrah trees in this area which is the E
most drought resistant tree has dried after the onset of prawn farms
in this area. Majority of the coconut trees have dried up and few
remaining have stopped yielding fruits.

The unanimous opinion of the people is that most of the F
mangrove species are on the decline. These mangroves serve as a
source of the fuel wood for domestic purposes, grazing ground for
animals, water-way for locals and tourists and an important habitat
for fisheries increasingly polluted because of the effluent dis-
charged by the shrimp farms. They also brought to our notice the
greater value of the mangrove as a stabliser of the coast and how, G
because of this being disturbed by the destruction of the palmyrah,
coconut and casuaring grooves, coastal erosion has become com-
mon.11

Regarding visit to Pudhupetti, the Committee stated as under :- H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A "We visited Pudhupettai on 14th July in order to get a first hand
knowledge about the impact of Farisa Aqua Farm details of which
was narrated by the Pudhupettai representative to the expert team
on 13th July at Nagai. We saw the pucca construction of the Farisa
farm's J etti into the sea to enable the pumping of the sea water.
This clearly is acting as a hindrance for the free mobility of the
B fishing community and their access to sea and land .... All these
three farms are situated within 25 m from the sea. Further these
farms are closely situated to the dwelling houses also. Coastal
Enterprises is situated at a distance of 20 m, the Farisha Aqua
farm at a distance of 250 m and Blue Base Aqua farm at 20 m
c from the dwellings of Perumalpettai the next fishing village from
Pudupettain there is a fourth enterprise namely Abhirami Aqua
farms which owns about 150 acres of wet land has not commenced
work as yet. ...... Pipes have been laid to discharge effluent either
to the sea, or adjoining dry lands belonging to the village or to the
water channel used by villages for bathing. Effluent is also being
D
discharged close to the dwelling houses. In particular, "effluent is
being collected right in front of my house" said Kalvikarasi a
resident of Pudhupettai village who made a representation to the
Expert team on July 13th. She said that "Drinking water in the
village is now turning salty" ........ The advantages of shore seine net
E fishing is the abundant catch of "Anchovy'' fish which has commer-
cially viable market. The construction of permanent jetties has
eliminated the 'shore seine net fishing. Shore seine net fishing
needs uninterrupted coastline and it has become an impossibility
in Pudupettai. About 10 shore seine nets are idle in the village.
F The construction of pipe to discharge effluent is a permanent one.
By construction of the permanent jetties, the natural sand dunes
in the village were destroyed. These sand dunes are a natural
cyclone barriers. Hence a threat of cyclone is imminent since these
natural cyclone barriers are destroye.d.

G The construction of pipelines ending in the sea for pumping in
sea water has damaged nearly 10 nets worth Rs. 60,000. Details of
nets damaged is given in Annexure 19. The Coastal E.nterprises
Ltd. has encroached the burial ground of Pudupettai and Blue
Base Aqua Farms has encroached the burial ground of Perumal-
H pettai.
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.O.I. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 909

The Committee visited the Pullicat lake area on July 10, 1995. The findings A
of the Committee are as under :-

"Ecologically the Tamilnadu part of the Pulicat lake is important
since it has the only opening of the lake into the sea thus function-
ing as the migratory route of these spawn animals like prawns, fish B
and mud crabs. The mud flats of pulicat lake harbours a number
of winter migratory birds. We were told that the water fowl
sanctuary at Pulicat is slowly being destroyed.... We observed that
Prawn farms are located all around the wetland. In the northern
region of the lake prawn farms are situated even in the lake-bed.
Maheshwari Export India Ltd. is constructing a Prawn Farm across C
the Pollica! lake bed clearly violative of the Tamilnadu Aqua
Culture Regulation Act. We also noticed water being pumped out
from the lake into the Prawn farms.

According to Dr. Sanjeeva Raj, Pulicat lake has two bird D
sanctuaries namely Yedurapettu and Nelapattu. It is estimated that
nearly 10-15 thousand of flamingoes and other rare birds visit the
Pulicat lake for four months only for feeding all the way from Rann
of Kutch. Other water birds like pelicans, Cormorants, Egrets and
Herons breed at Nelapattu and feed at this Pulicat lake. At
Yedurapattu, Painted Storks, Pelicans, and Open Bills also feed E
here. In 1993 it was estimated that there was 10000 to 15000
Flamingoes. By 1994 this has been reduced to less than 1000. The
reason for this can be attributed to the effluent from prawn farms
which kills the organisms on which the Flamingoes feed. The
depletion of natural feed could have caused this reduction.......The F
Tamilnadu forest Department is establishing a third sanctuary in
the southern tip of Pulicat lake. We were told that due to the noise
of oil engines, bulldozers and other disturbances by the prawn
farms many birds especially painted stork's have deserted this lake.

Dr. Sanjeeva Raj also states that Pulicat is ecologically very
·G
sensitive and fragile. The east coast is vulnerable to cyclones. With
the hundreds of prawn farms along the coast excavating sand along
the coast line every possibility .existed for inviting the sea to enter
and destroy the water table. Further, prawn farms destroys sand
dunes and vegetations and in times of tidal waves sea water could H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A enter in a big way.

Further, Dr. Sanjeeva Raj said that Pulicat lake is fairly shallow
with an average depth of about 1.5 m. It can be described as a
Saucer. The pumping of water by aquafarms will result in an
artificial drying up of the lake. Added to this the road, from
B Sulurpet that has been constructed for reaching the Shriharikotta
rocket launching site through the lake has obstructed free flow of
water. It is generally claimed by the prawn farm owners that the
land on the eastern side of the road is not the part of Pulicat lake
and hence prawn farms can be constructed. This is false as all this
c land area is part of the Pulicat lake. The tragedy is that if prawn
farms are erected on the higher side of the lake, the effluent from
the prawn farms will flow back into the lake causing serious
damage to marine and estuarine biota ........ Pasipuram Rajiv Gandi
Nagar has a dalit hamlet Edamani, This hamlet had a water tank
which provided water to the nearly 35 villages. The source of water
D
was the village ground water. But due to the impact of the adjoining
farm the water became saline making it unsuitable for consump-
tion.

E
An eminent danger by the prawn companies is to the village
called Jamila badb. This village has 150 muslim families (fisher).
They were originally living in the land on which the Shriharikotta
-
Space Research Station is built. These families were relocated by
the Government promising jobs and providing free housing site
near the Pulicat lake. They built their own huts at the cost of Rs.
F 3000 each. These huts today face serious flood threat since on both
sides of the village two prawn enterprises have obstructed the
Ponneri lake water to flow in to the sea. This obstruction due to
the construction of prawn farms floods the village. From 1991 till
date every year water reaches the boundary of the village and
before it could enter inside nearly 2000 village people manually
G divert the water to the sea, though the village people have made
representation and protested to the owners, they use their
economic and political power to scare the fishing people and make
them live in a permanent state of fear. People also told us that
they are affected by itching, scabies, and fever which could be due
H to the discharge of effluent."
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KULDJPSINGH,J.] 911

The Committees' observation regarding Karaikal district Pondicherry are A
as under:-

'. "As quoted by the Pondichery Science Forum, :"Karaikal region
has only 20 kms of coastal stretch. This coastal stretch is of
environmental significance as the area and its environs have creeks
and lagoons, beaches with dunes, coastal plains, natural reeves, B
flood plain and is also the tail end of the Cauvery river basin.
Karaikal is considered as the granary of Pondicherry and has main
irrigation canals like Nini kattalai Pidari Kartalai and
Arasapuram!T.
• c
The ground water reserves of Karaikal is frightfully meagre but
for the only sweet water aquifer at about 10 to 20 ft. deep there is
no other potable aquifer. This water source cannot be exploited
continuously since it takes time to recharge and poses danger of
sea water intrusion. Only manual hand pumps are being used to
tap this water at present. D

It is in this context Karaikal is posed with the serious danger
of loosing this sweet water acquifer as most of the small prawn
farms are in the process deriving water during the high tides from
the rivers like Mullaiyar, Thirumalairayananar, Arasalar Nandalar E
and Pravidayanar and also used ground water for Shrimp culture.
This continuous withdrawal of fresh water will alter surface water
resources. So, there is no possibility for the recharging mechanisms
as the wet lands near these river basins are converted to
aquafarms and these wet lands have lost their function of absorbing
rain water and recharging the aquifer zones." F

The conclusions reached by the Suresh Committee under various headings
indicating the impact of shrimp culture farming on environment are
reproduced hereunder :-
G
"(a) Effluent Pollution

As Shrimp Culture using high protein feeds is a highly polluting
activity. Presently 78,000 tonnes feed is used in India in Shrimp
Culture. This is bio-degradable, if properly treated. It leaves be-
hind responded solids (organic) and the decomposition liberates H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A inorganic N and P. 77.5% of N and 86% of P from the feed are
worked and enter the pond environment. 1 ton of P. monodon
production results in a pollution load of 56.3-48.1 Kg N and
13.0-24.4 Kg P. (Phillips et al 1993. ICLARM. Conf. Proc 31171
198).

B Excess amount of P and N are detrimental to environment
(Rurnseg 1994 SACMONID XVII (4) : 10-14). These lead to
"hyper eutrophication" resulting in massive algal blooms and
oxygen depletion which are harmful to aquatic life, these blooms
such as "Red tide" cause fish mortality. The effluent quality during
c harvesting the shrimp pond is: total nitrogen 1900-261'10 ppm, total
0 40-110 PPM and organic carbon 7.3-13.7 ppm. The impact of
this is the reduced oxygen, hyper nitrification, alteration or com-
munity structure, sedinextation changes in besithic communities
etc (Phillips et al 1993).

D
Further "Self Pollution" results from feed wasted, which be-
comes unmanageable (imre Csavas 1994. Shrimp News Interna-
tional March-April 1994), Organic wastes, solid matter, dissolved
metabolites like ammonia, Carbon-dioxide are produced. Decom-
posing organic matter depletes oxygen from water. Admittedly
E being biodegradable the effluents consume oxygen and so denude
the water of its oxygen. When there is oxygen deficit, fish avoid
such low oxygen zones and move further away to oxygen saturated
zones and when there is oxygen depletion fish die en-masse.
Fishing village near whose coast shrimp ponds have come up -Fish
F have become scarce and the artisanal fisherman have to go further
away from shore to catch fish. Population of fish and their diversity
decrease. .. ....With regard to farm effluents being treated and
discharged into the sea and other water bodies. We did not see
or hear about any such scientific process of effluent treatment
having been set up by prawn farms. In M/s Bask farms we were
G shown two partially dry sedimentation tanks. We saw untreated
effluents from M/s Amalgam shrimp farm being discharged into
the beach (not even into the sea) causing degradation of the beach
shore with dark brown, foul smelling organic matter, which is a
health hazard. The Joint Director, MPEDA itself has stated that
H 'most of the farms .have not set up effluent treatment systems.
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 913

(b) Salinisation A

The dominant species of Shrimp cultured is Penaeus monodon
the tiger prawn and next comes the white prawn, P. indicus. Both
are marine prawns. P. monodon grows best at salinities of 10-20
p.pt (20% but tolerate slightly higher or lower salinities. P. indicus B
requires higher salinity 20-30 ppi. Thus seawater is the primary
medium of growth. Seawater or salinity 35-36 ppt is taken into the
ponds. The growing period ranges from 120-150 days. Sea water
is periodically replaced Sea water remaining in the pond for a long
period seeps into neighbouring areas where agriculture is practiced
and salinizes the soils which therefore lose their productivity for C
crops and become unfit for agriculture. Even assuring that the 500
m zonation is enforced it will not solve the problem of salination.
Agriculture lands, inwards (towards inland) of shrimp ponds will
become saline and the chain reaction will continue ..... Many shrimp
industries assert that they are taking only sea water for shrimp D
culture and do not use ground water. Sea water has a salinity
around 35 ppt. It is mostly Penaeus monodon the tiger shrimp.
This needs a salinity in the range of 15-20 ppt for optimum growth.
So the shrimp producer have necessarily to dilute it to bring down
the salinity by adding fresh water. Let along ground water, we have
even seen river water being pumped near Poompuhar into to E
shrimp ponds......Salinization is not only possible but has actually
happened all over the world. The Bhagwathi institute of Environ-
ment and Development, analysed numerous samples of water
adjacent to shrimp farms in Sirkali Taluk, TN, and found that in
most of them Chlorides exceeded the permitted limits even by over F
100 times for eg. 15265 mgil in drinking water source near
Suryakumar Shrimp to Mahendrapalle. In Kurru village, Nellore
District, drinking water became saline after four shrimp farms were
established and BUD people of this village had no drinking water
(Vandana Shiva 1994, "Social and Environmental impact of
Aquaculture). Dr. Alagarswami, Director CIBA identifies Saliniza- G
lion of drinking water, wells, dwelling units adjoining agriculture
lands and aquifers as critical issues in shrimp culture. (National
Workshop on Transfer of Technology for sustainable shrimp Farm-
ing, Ms. Swaminathan Foundation Madras, January 9-10, 1995) D~.
V. Gopalakrishnan, former FAQ expert says "salt water seepage H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A problem appears to be genuine and such area should be avoided
for establishing new shrimp farms" (Fish & Fisheries, Newsletter,
No 4 January 1995). Dr. Sanjeevaraj noted that in Pulicat lake,
saltwater from Prawn ponds was known to be seeping into drinking
water tables (CUPDANET NEWSLETTER Winter 1994) ........We
have noted the salinization of drinking water in Pudukuppam,
B
Naicker Kuppam, Poompuhar, Perunthottam, Pudupet, etc in
Sirkali Taluk caused by large shrimp units and also in a very acute
manner in Pattinamarudur, Tuticorin, VOC district which is
sandwitched between two large farms viz. ITC and MAC Aqua
farms Ltd.
c
(c) Feed and wastes

In a moderate 3 t/ha yield of shrimp, 4-6 t/ha feed is applied
while for a yield of St/ha it is 15!/ha. The magnitude of pulTeseible
D organic matter from these wastes is enormous. Hence, the practice
of discharging such effluents into common water bodies needs to
be strongly discouraged because of the strongly polluting effect
(Mackintosh, D.J. INFOFISH. International 6/92, 38-41). Feed
wastes are more toxic than sewage and this is a sufficient ground
for banning industrial Shrimp Cultnre, .....The Team found that
E Amalgam marine Harvests, was blatantly dischwging the effluents
into the foreshore naJTow sandy breach at Pudukuppam. This has
spoiled the aesthetic appearance of the breach. The area is dark
brown in colour and foul smelling. This will pose a serious hazard
to Public Health. The wastes also enter "Uppanar" stream hardly 5
F m away from discharge point. This is illegal and affects the health
of villages. Settleable solids silt up the ponds and canals. Over
accumulation of detritus leads to profusion of protozoa, and
ciliates, which cover the body of fish. Respiratory diseases, loss of
appetite, black gill disease, shell disease, foul smell of internal
parts, tail rot etc are caused by such unhealthy pond conditions.
G The quality 9f effluents discharged into the environment are so
poor that biological methods will not be sufficient to treat them. "-"----.
Most of the environmental troubles are caused by the industrial
shrimp. The coastal zone used for culturing aquatic organisms is
only a narrow strip on the continental shell and on the low lying
H flatlands. Hence the very fragile natnre of the coastal ecosystem is
S. JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 915

getting destroyed. A

(d) Fertilizers and therapeutants

Large quantities of feeds are being used and fertilizer applica-
tions are generally minimal. Lime is regularly used but continued
use of lime impoverished the soil. It also hardens the soil. B
However, it is the use of therapeutants that this highly destruc-
tive of the environment. A very incisive account of the use of drugs
in acquaculture is available from P. de. Kinklein and C. Michael
(INFOFISL International 4/92: 45-46 1992) and an exhaustive C
report is provided by Fred P. Meyer, an authority on the subject.
(Review in Aquaculture sciences Ve 1(4):693-710 1989). However
the use of drugs has only aggravated the damage to environment.
Sulpha drugs, Tetracyclines Quinolones, Nitrofurans, macrolids
(for eg. erythromycin), Chloramphenicol, and dozens of similar
drugs are in use. Organophosphorus compounds like Dichlorvas D
are also used. Formalin, malachite green copper sulphate, quater-
nary ammonium compounds, lodophores, chloramine-T etc., are
used as sanitizers.

Viruses cannot be treated by any of the drugs. Renibacterinm E
sp is also resistant to drugs. Chemotherapy leads to transit of drugs
and their long persistence. Rebase of drugs or their metabolites
into the environment affects the non-target organisms. Use of
steroids (Di-dehyl stilboestrol; to fatten shrimp in ponds has car- .
cinogenic effect on humans. Use of chloramphenicol has unpre-
dictable risks for human beings. Effluent treatment and F
self-recovery are hampered by the drugs by suppressing
saprophytic bacteria involved in purification processes. Soils ac-
cumulate drug residues.

(e) [,ass of Mangroves and Biodiversity
G
We observed that removal or destruction of these important
mangrove habitats for establishing shrimp farms is becoming in-
creasingly common along the coast of Tamilnadu. From the
Photographs (No. 40-45 showing the destruction of mangroves-
bunds are already built), it is evident that there are several shrimp H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A farms on the banks of Pitchavaram Mangrove forests a valuable
habitat. For the farms, water intake from the habitat will lead to
virtual dryness of the habitat and the loss of biodiversity in this
valuable realm. It is evident that the consequences are felt by the
existing farms (Palmyarh and coconut trees in nearby farms are
withering - Photograph No. 46 & 47). The destruction of the
B
mangroves (Photo No. 40-42) for shrimp farm will be a major cause
for the loss of habitat diversity along the coastline of Tamilnadu.
We are going to lose a valuable gene pool and thus conservation
of mangrove genetic resources from the activities of shrimp in-
dustry is a matter of primary urgency.
c
(f) Loss of Biodiversity in Cauvery flood plain and delta

The stagnation in water of this lower reaches is due to the illegal
damming at several places along the course and the obstruction of
D feeder canals ad distributors to the main river. Once considered a
best estuary and the delta of canvery are now vanished (Photo No.
48 showing the ill fated Cauvery). Also in the lower reaches in
Nagai district, Tamilnadu,low land drains regulator has been used
for their effluent release (Photo No. 49) showing the block and the
P.W.D. feeder canals are either blocked by the farm owners or
E using as drainage for effluent release by Amalgam Marine Harvests
Ltd. at Pudhukkuppam (Photo No. 50) from the farms. These
canals and drains once used as a freshwater resource for bathing
and rechargers for the wells for the fisher folk in several villages
now become saline because of the cessation of flow (example :
F Pudukuppam village of Sirkali Taluk district; Pudapettal village
Tharangampadi Taluk. ... Seed collection of Peneaus monodon
(tiger prawn) by children is a regular practice in these canals now.
During their collection of seeds the children picked only the tiger
prawn seeds and threw away all other shrimp and fish seeds, thus
depleting the estuarine and coastal fishery resources. One child
G get paise 0.10 for the tiger prawn seed and one earns about Rupees
one hundred (Rs. 100 per day and 40-50 children are engaged in
seed collection). This involves child labour and depletion of fishery
resources and the loss of biodiversity in coastal and deltaic regions
of Cauvery. Nursery grounds for shell and fin fishes are Jost in this
H ancient river delta.
S. JAGANNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 917

(g) Threatened Wetlands of National and Intemational Importance A
The marshy swamps of Vedaranyam are now as threatened
habitats with the formation of shrimp culture all along the brackish
water zones and in the marshy swamps ..... .Another wet land of
national importance, which is being threatened is Pulicat lake.
Report A (1992) by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, B
Government of India clearly stressed the need of conserving these
wetlands of national importance. ...In the Government of India
Report Pulicat Lake has been identified as an important lagoon
(p.8 of the Report). This fragile ecosystem has been under great
threat by the industrial shrimp farming. In the main brackish water c
area, construction ofbunds is going on (Photo No. 55 to 66). From
the photographs it is evident that the marshy lands with its typical
marshy vegetation is the only area left and almost all the marshy
areas are being lost because of the upcoming shrimp culture ponds.
These areas of marshy vegetation act as spawning/nursery grounds
for a variety of estuarine/marine in vertebrates, and fisl).es. These D
areas also provide wildlife habitats to several migrant birds.

(h) Impact on agriculture

Dr. Alagarswami, Director CIBA identifies "indiscriminate E
conversion of agricultural lands into shrimp culture" as a critical
issue. Most shrimp farmers in coastal areas-have converted agricul-
tural lands into shrimp ponds. More relevant is the fact that shrimp
industry puses salinisation of crop lands. Seawater (Salinity
around 35 ppt i.e. 35%) is pumped into the shrimp ponds. The
growing period is from 120-150 days. This long detention of saline F
water in the shrimp ponds seeps into the adjacent crop lands and
salinizes them resulting in reduction or productivity or even bar-
renness. Then this "Unproductive" land (so declared by the shrimp
industries) is converted into shrimp ponds.

We are concerned that conversion of paddy fields to shrimp G
ponds is already adversely affecting local rice production. In all
the places we visited in NQM district Pattinamarudur of Tuticorin,
Pulicat of Chengai MGR districts Etc; most of the shrimp ponds
are constructed on fertile agricultural land or on marginal lands
where on crop is raised. Owing to the recent shortage of Cauvery H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A water (dispute between T.N. and Karnataka). The yield of crops
has been affected. Taking advantage of this, Shrimp industries have
been buying up agricultural land through inducement, persuasion
and high pressure on revenue authorities. Salinization of soil and
water adjoining the shrimp farms is very well documented for
Perunthottam village. As per the cultivation record for land pur-
B
chased by Mis Bask farms we see clearly that the lands purchased
were fertile agricultural lands with an average of two crops having
a 60% harvest yield.

(i) Denial of potable water
c
"Nagai, Q.M. districts of Tamilnadu, the erstwhile granary of
South'', is today threatened with pollution, ecological imbalance
aud land alienation because of the arrival of large number of
private companies and transnational corporations that have been
D investing heavily in shrimp farms etc (Mukul Sharma: Interpress
service November 11, 1994). Drinking water in the vicinity of
shrimp farms has become saline, wherever such farms were
operated. Shrimp culture may increase salinity through facilitating
the flow of saline water inland and discharge of saline effluent
E (Philips Kwei Lin and Beveridge 1993.) Water samples from 7
villages in Sirkazhi near the shrimp farms were_ analysed by Bhag-
wathi Environment Development Institute at Dindigul. It was
found that the water from bore wells and hand pumps were
unpotable (see Annexure) ·the villages directed were
Mahendrapatti, Neithavasal, Pudukuppam, Eranyimedu,
F Keelaiyur, Thirunagari, Nirajimedu etc. This was also confirmed
by the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh in Kurru village. Nellore Dt
where all the freshwater wells became saline and unpotable after
4 shrimp farms were established. The proof of this was the fast
that the District Collector, Nellore ordered the supply of drinking
G water through tankers, to these villagers. Dr. P. Sanjeev Raj (COP-
DANET NEWS LETTER winter 1994) also found that salt water
from shrimp ponds seeped into drinking water sources. Dr. van-
dana Shiva, after visiting some villages recorded that "shortage of
drinking water and deterioration of its quality have resulted in the
H neighbourhood of shrimp farms".
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KUI.DIP SINGH,J.] 919

Protection of ground water sources may be viewed as non- A
tradeable capital, as once contaminated, they may prove impossible
to rehabilitate {Mark Evarard 1994).

As per the study done by BED!, Water sample from a drinking
water well in Naikarkupparn had a IDS of 2164 mg/1 and a B
chloride content of 993 mg/1 in addition to excessive quantities of
Mg and Ca. Samples collected from a drinking water hand pump
near Shriram Shrimp farm now Amalgam farms had an exceedingly
high TDS of 357/Sm g/1, hardness of 7506 mg/I which is as bad as
seawater. Unacceptably high Ca, Mg and sulphate were recorded.
Another hand pump near the same farm had a TDS of 1466 mg/ C
and a chloride content of 656 ppm which are unpotable.

Drinking water from a handpump near the shrimp farm of
Coastal Enterprises Ltd had a TDS of 7694, chloride of 3879,
hardness of 24/0 mg/I and so was unpotable." D

The three reports discussed above give a rather depressing scenario
of the shrimp industry. While the production increases and export earnings
of the industry are well publicised, the socio-economic losses and environ-
mental degradation affecting the well-being of coastal population are hard- E
' ly noticed. The traditional production systems are being replaced by more
intensive ones. This has been encouraged by increasing demand from high
income countries. Shrimp yield per hectare in many areas increased within
a few years from an average 100 kg/ha per harvest to an average of 1000
kg/ha/crop for semi-intensive shrimp farms and to between 2000 and 10000
kg/ha/crop for intensive type of production. The social and environmental F
costs of the expanding shrimp industry are closely inter-related. Pollution
and other types of natural resource degradation induced by shrimp farming
have been considerably, highlighted in the NEERI reports and other
material quoted and discussed by us. Social and environmental changes,
resulting from expanding shrimp industry in coastal areas are largely due
to the conversion into shrimp farms or the lands, waters and forests which G
were earlier dedicated to other uses. In fact, shrimp farms are developing
at the expense of other agriculture, acquaculture, forest uses and fisheries
that are better suited in many places for meeting local food and employ-
ment requirements. Intensive and semi-intensive types of shrimp produc-
tion hardly seem to meet these requirements. H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Mangrove forests constitute an important component of coastal eco-
systems. They thrive in tidle estuaries, salt marshes and muddy coast lines.
Conversion of mangrove to shrimp farms significantly reduces the natural
production of wild capture shrimp as well as other fisheries. Moreover,
their production role for low-lying coastal regions is rapidly diminishing by
B their replacement by shrimp ponds. The Sunder Bans, which constitute one
of the biggest mangrove areas in the world, covered in the early 1990s about
12000 sq kms. in India and Bangladesh. In the West Bengal part of Sunder
Bans large mangrove areas have been replaced by the shrimp ponds.

The increasing need for land by shrimp entrepreneurs has meant a
C dramatic rise in land prices in many areas. After the installation of shrimp
farms near village lands, prices rise estronomically. Local farmers can no
longer afford to purchase land, while indebted farmers are tempted to sell
their holdings. Much of the coastal land recently converted into shrimp
farms was previously used for food crops and traditional fishing.

D The United Nations Research institute for Social Development in
collaboration with the World Wide Fund for Nature International has
conducted a study and published a report dated June 19, 1995 called "Some
Ecological and Social implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in
Asia". The report is prepared by Solon Barraclong and Andrea Finger -
E Stich (the UN Report).

The UN Report gives the following picture regarding polluted waters
and depleted fisheries :-

"Polluted waters and depleted fisheries; Shrimp farms use both sea
F and fresh water to replenish their ponds. This brings them into
competition with other users of these water resources. In areas
where commercial shrimp ponds have been constructed there is
frequently insufficient fresh water left to meet customary needs for
irrigation, drinking, washing, or other household and livestock
related uses, and water supplies may be contaminated, or both.
G Groundwater Salinization has been reported in several places. This
often means that people - most of the time women - have to bring
water from more distant wells, in a village in Tamil Nadu (Nagai-
Quaio-e-Millet district, Pompuhar region), for example, women
have to walk two to three kilometers to fetch drinking water that
H previously was available nearby before the expansion of shrimp
S.JAGANNATII v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 921
farms on about 10,000 hectares (Bhagat, 1994). In Andhra Pradesh, A
a case study conducted by Vandana Shiva reports that,in the
Nellore district, there was no drinking water available for the 600
fisherfolk of the village of Kurru due to aquaculture farms saliniz-
ing groundwater. She adds that "after protest from the local
women, drinking water was supplied in tankers" (Mukul, 1994)
B
.... Local stocks of native fish and crustaceans are being depleted
in many places because of the removal of mangroves which served
as nurserybeds, and also as a result of indiscriminate overfishing
of wild shrimp fry (over 90 per cent of randomly caught fry are
often wasted [Gujja, 1994]). Natural fisheries are also frequently
damaged by pollution caused by overloads of nutrients, sediments c
and chemicals from shrimp farms. In another Indian coastal village,
Ramachandrapurarn, fishermen reported that the value of their
average catch of shrimp used to be Rs. 50,000 per catamaran per
month, but after one year of operation of nearby aquafarms their
catch was ten times smaller (Mukul, 1994). In the Chokoria part D
of the Sundarbans of Bangladesh, fishermen report an 80 percent
drop in fish capture since the destruction of the mangroves and
building of dikes for shrimp farming (Sultna, 1994). Frequently,
fisherfolk protest because their traditional access to the coast has
been restricted or because stocks of wild crustaceans and fish have
disappeared. E

All the reports referred to by us clearly indicate that the expansion
of modern shrimp ponds in the coastal areas has meant that local fishermen
could only reach the beach by trespassing at great risk on shrimp farms or
by taking a log detour. Local people have not only lost access to their F
fishing grounds and to their sources of riverine seafoods and seaweeds, but
they also have to relinquish social and recreational activities traditionally
taking place on their beaches. The UN Report gives the following picture
regarding natural resource degradation as a result of shrimp farming :-

"In areas densely covered with intensive shrimp farms, however, G
the industry is responsible for considerable self- pollution and
particularly for bacteriological and viral contamination. Each hec-
tare of pond produces tons of undigested feed and fasecal wastes
for every crop cycle. This induces the growth of phytoplankton,
protozoa, fungus, bacteria and viruses (like the Vibrio group grow- H
922 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A ing in shrimp faeces and in large part responsible for the 1988
collapse of lastwan's production) (Lin, 1989). The overuse of
fertilizers and of veterinary and sanitary products such as an-
tibiotics adds to the water pollution problem. It also contributes
to the decreasing resistance of the shrimp stock. Where intensive
shrimp farms are densely spaced, waste laden water tends to slosh
B from .one pond to another before it is finally discharged into the
sea. Shrimp producers are extremely concerned about assured
supplies of clean water as it is vital for their immediate economic
returns.

c Large amounts of sedimentation in intensive shrimp ponds is
posing serious disposal problems for shrimp farmers. From 100 to
500 tons of sediment per hectare per year are apparently ac-
cumulating. Since only some 10 tons of feed is used to produce
about 5 tons of shrimp per hectare per year, this raises questions
D about where such incredible quantities of sedjment come from
(Rosenberry, 1994a:42). Ponds are cleaned after each crop cycle
and the sediments are often discarded in water ways leading into
the sea, or they are sometimes used to build dikes. Their putrefac-
tion inside and outside the ponds causes foul odours, hyper-
nutrification and eutrophisation, siltation and turbidity of water
E courses and estuaries, with detrimental implications on local fauna
and flora ...... Biodiversity losses: The impacts of semi-intensive and
intensive shrimp aquaculture on biodiversity ("the totality of genes,
species and ecosystems in a region") are multiple. This is because
of the land area they cover; the water they pollute; the water
F circulation systems they alter; the wild fish and crustacean habitats
they replace; the risks they pose of disease transfer; the impacts
of released raised shrimp on the genetic diversity and resilence of
indigenous shrimp and possibly also their negative impacts on
other native fauna and flora ...... Health hazards: Health hazards to
local populations living near or working in shrimp farms have been
G observed in several places. For instance, in Tamil Nadu (Quaid-e-
Milleth district near Pondicherry) an approximately 1,500 acre
large shrimp farm has been reported to have caused eight deaths
from previously unknown diseases within a period of two months
following the installation of the aquaculture farm (Naganathan et
H al., 1995:601). There are numerous hazards to public health along
S. JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 923

the shrimp production chain from the farmers through the various A
processors to the often distant consumers. The workers employed
on shrimp farms handle several potentially dangerous chemicals,
and may be exposed to unsanitary working conditions."

According to the UN Report - intensive ponds have a maximum life of only
5 to 10 years. Abandoned ponds can no longer be used for shrimp and B
there are few known alternative uses for them except some other types of
acquaculture. Apparently they can seldom be economically rehabilitated
for other uses such as crop land. The extent of abandoned areas by the
shrimp industry has been indicated by the UN Report in the following
words:- c
"After a production cycle of about four or five months,shrimp
ponds under intensive use are cleaned and disinfected and the '
polluted sludge is removed and often disposed of unsafely. This
treatment, however, does not usually suffice to maintain the ponds'
productivity for more than five to ten yn years {I bid., Annex D
111/12). Entrepreneurs then move to other areas because of pollu-
tion and disease. This mode of production has been called "rape
and run" (Csavas, 1944b). The altered milieu of these abandoned
ponds inhibits the spontaneous regeneration of vegetation and
their use for agriculture, forestry, other aquaculture or related E
fishing activities. These abandoned areas do not appear in
worldwide estimastes of areas used for shrimp farming, which for
1993 were estimates to include 962,000 hectare, of which 847,000
hectares were in Asia. In December 1994 these areas were es-
timated to have increased worldwide to 1,147.500 with 1,017,000
hectares in Asia {Rosenberry, 1993 and 1994a). Globally, areas F
affected by the industry's practices over the last decade are
probably at least one third larger, or even more if the total
infrastructures surrounding the ponds are accounted for."

The UN Report pithily sums up the "conflicts and externalities'' as under: -
G
... "A major portion of the conflicts arising from the expansion of
shrimp farming are the result of environmental and social degrada-
tion that is not included in the costs of shrimp production. Where
the industry assumes no responsibility for damages to other groups
arising from its activities, economists call them "externalities". For H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A example, abandoned ponds are usually virtually unusable for other
purposes for indefinite periods without costly rehabilitation, which
is seldom undertaken. Mangrove destruction, flooding or crops,
salinization or pollution of land and water associated with the
expansion of shrimp farming all affect the local people depending
on these resources 11 •
B
Alagarswami has divided the shrimp-farm technology into six types.
We have already quoted the relevant paragraph 5.1.2 of the report. Al-
though different experts have given different nomenclature to different
types of shrimp farm technologies, we are of the view that the types
C indicated by Alagarswami in his report are based on the functioning of the
shrimp culture industry in India and as such are acceptable. Keeping in
view the NEER! report and other material quoted and discussed by us, we
are of the view that the traditional and· improved traditional types of
shrimp-farm technologies-defined by Alagarswami - are environmentally
D benign and pollution free. Other types of technologies - extensive, modified
extensive, semi intensive and intensive - create pollution and have degrad-
ing affect on the environment and coastal ecology. Such type of shrimp
farms carmot be permitted to operate.

We may refer to constitutional and statutory provisions which man-
E date the State to protect and improve the environment. Article 48-A of the
Constitution of India states that "the State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country". Article 51-A of the Constitution imposes as one of the fundamen-
tal duties on every citizen, the duty to protect and improve the natural
F environment including forests, lakes,rivers and wild life and to have com-
passion for living creatures. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the
Act) was enacted as a result of the decisions taken at the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972
in which India participated. The India delegation was led by the then Prime
Minister of India. The statement of objects and reason to the Act is as
G under:-

"The decline in environmental quality has been evidenced by in-
... .
creasing pollution, loss of vegtal cover and biological diversity;
excessive concentrations of harmful chemicals in the ambient at-
H mosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.O.L [KULDJPSJJj'GH,J.] 925

accidents and threats to life support systems. The world A
community's resolve to protect and enhance the environmental
quality found expression in the decisions taken at the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stock-
holm in June, 1972. Government of India participated in the
Conference and strongly voiced the .emironmental concerns.
B
While several measures have been taken for environmental protec-
tion both before and after the Conference, the need for a general
legislation further to implement the decisions of the Conference
has become increasingly evident."

Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(e) of the Environment Act are as under:- c
"2. Definitions.-ln this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-
relationship which exists among and between water, air and land,
and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro- organism D
and property;

(b) "environmental pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous
substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be,
injurious to environment; E

(c) "environmental pollution" means the presenc()n the environ-
ment of any environmental pollutant;

(e) "hazardous substance" means any substance or preparation
which, by reason of its chemical or physio-chemical properties or F
handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment;"

Sections 7 and 8 of the Environment Act are as under :-

"'7. Persons carrying on industry operation, etc., not to allow emis- G
sion or the discharge of environmental pollutants in excess of the
standards.- No person carrying on any industry,operation or
process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or
emitted any environmental pollutant in excess of such standards
as may be prescribed. H
926 SUPREME COUR;JfREPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 8. Persons handling hazardous substances to comply with proce-
dural safeguards.- No person shall handle or cause to be handled
any hazardous substance except in accordance with such proce-
dure and after complying with such safeguards as may be
prescribed.

B Section 15 of the Act makes contravention of the provisions of the said Act
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years
or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. If the failure
or contravention continues beyond a period of one year after the date of
conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
C which may extend to seven years. The effluents discharged by the commer-
cial shrimp culture farms are covered by the definition of Environmental
pollutant, environmental pollution and hazardous substance. The NEER!
reports indicate that the effluents discharged by the farms at various places
were excess of the prescribed standards. Unfortunately, no action is being
taken by the authorities under the Act.
D
Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 (the
rules) have been framed under the Act. Rule 2(i) of the rules defines
"hazardous wastes" to mean categories of wastes specified in the Schedule

E
appended to the rules. Waste category No. 12 under the Schedule to the
rules is as under :- -
"SCHEDULE

Categories of Hazardous Waste

Regulatory
F Weste Categories Types of wastes
quantities
1 2 3
Waste Category Sludges arising from treatment of Irrespective of
No. 12 waste waters containing heavy any quality.
metals, toxic organics, oils,
G
emulsions and spend chemicals
and incrineration ash."

Rule 5 of the rules makes it obligatory of every occupier generating
hazardous wastes to obtain authorisation as provided under the said rule.
H Rule 5(4) requires the State Pollution Control Board not to issue any
S. JAGANNATI! v. U.O.I. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 927

authorisation unless it is satisfied that the operator of a facility or an A
occupier, as the case may be, possesses appropriate facilities, technical
capabilities and equipment to handle hazardous waste safely.

Mr. Mehta has vehemently contended that the shrimp culture farms
are discharging highly polluting effluent which is "hazardous waste", under
the rules, Mr. Mehta relying upon the NEER! reports and other reports B
placed on record has contended that none of the farms have obtained
authorisation from the State Pollution Control Boards.

The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water
Act) has been enacted to provide for the prevention and control of water
c
pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Water Act, inter a/ia, state as
under :-

"The problem of pollution of rivers and streams has assumed
considerable importance and urgency in recent years as a result of D
the growth of industries and the increasing tendency to urbaniza-
tion. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that the domestic and
industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into the water
courses without adequate treatment as such discharges would
render the water unsuitable as source of drinking water as well as
E
for supporting fish life and for use in irrigation. Pollution of rivers
and streams also causes increasing damage to the country's
economy."

Section 2G) & (k) of the Water Act are as under :-
F
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

G) "stream" includes-

(i) river;
G
(ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being
dry);

(iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);

(iv) sub-terranean waters; H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A (v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may
be, to such point as the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this be-
half;

(k) "trade effluent" includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance
B which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any
[industry operation or process, or treatment and disposal system],
other than domestic sewage.

Section 25 of the Water Act provides that no person shall, without the
C previous consent of the State Board establish any industry, operation or
process, or any treatment and disposal system which is likely to discharge
sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land. There
is nothing on the record to show that the shrimp culture farm owners are
even conscious of the statutory .provisions which require them to obtain
the necessary consent/authorisation from the concerned Pollution Control
D Boards.

There are other legislations like Fisheries Act, 1897, Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which contain
useful provisions for environment protection and pollution control. Unfor-
E lunately, the authorities responsible for the implementation of various
statutory provisions are wholly re-miss in the performance of their duties
under the said provisions.

, At this stage we may deal with a question which has incidentally
come up for our consideration. Under para 2 of the CRZ notification, the
F activities listed thereunder are declared as prohibited activities. Various
State Governments have enacted coastal acquaculture legislations regulat-
ing the industries set up in the coastal areas. It was argued before us that
certain provisions of the State legislations, including that of the State of
Tamil Nadn are not in consonance with the CRZ notification issued by the
G Government of India under Section 3(3) of the Act. Assuming that be so,
we are of the view that the Act being a central legislation has the overriding
effect. The Act (the Environment Protection Act, 1986) has been enacted
under Entrj 13 of List 1 Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The
said entry is as under :-

H Participation in international conferences, assessment and other
S.JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 929

bodies and implementing of decisions made there at.'' A

The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement
the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972. The Parliament has enacted
the Act under Entry 13 of List 1 Schedule, VII read with Article 253 of B
the Constitution of India, the CRZ notification having been issued under
the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the law made by
the legislatures of the States.

This Court in Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Fornm v. U11io11 of India & Ors.,
JT (1966) 7 SC 375, has dealt with the concept of "sustainable development" C
and has speciality accepted "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Pol-
luter Pays" principle as part of the environmental laws of the land. The
relevant part of the judgment is as under :

''The traditional concept that development and ecology are op- D
posed to each other, is no longer acceptable. "Sustainable Develop-
ment" is the answer. In the International sphere "sustainable
Development" as a concept came to be known for the first time in
the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept
was given a definite shape by the world Commission on Environ-
ment and Development in its report called "Our Common Future". E
The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Nor-
way Ms. G .H. Brundtland and as such the report is popularly
known as "Brundtland Report". In 1991 the World Conservation
Union, United Nations Environment Programme and World Wide
Fund for Nature, jointly came out with a document called "Caring F
for the Earth" which is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally,
came the Earth Summit held in June, 1992 at Rio which saw the
largest gathering of world leaders ever in the history - deliberating
and chalking out a blue print for the survival of the planet. Among
the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the signing G
of two conventions, one on biological diversity and another on
climate change. These conventions were signed by 153 nations. The
delegates also approved by consensus three non binding docu-
ments namely, a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration
of principles on environmental policy and development initiatives
and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century in H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A areas like poverty population and pollution. During the two
decades from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable Development" has
come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and
improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying
capacity of the supporting eco-systems. "Sustainable Development"
as defined by the Brundtland Report means "Development that
B meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of the future generations to meet their own needs". We have no
hesitation in holding that "Sustainable Development" as a balancing
concept between ecology and development has been accepted as
a part of the Customary International Law though its salient
c features have yet to be finalised by the International Law Jurists.

Some of the salient principles or "Sustainable Development'', as
culled out from Brundtland Report and other international docu-
ments, are inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary
D Principle, Polluter Pays principle, Obligation to assist and
cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the
developing countries. We are, however, of the view that "the
Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays" principle are
essential features of "Sustainable Development''. The "Precaution-
E ary Principle" - in the context of the municipal law - means :

(i) Environment measures - by the State Government and the
statutory authorities - must anticipate,prevent and attack the
causes of envirollmental degradation.

F (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible
' damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.

(iii) The "onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer/in-
G dustrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.

"The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound
principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action
v. Union of India, JT (1996) 2 196. The Court observed, "We are
H of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be
S.JAGANNA'IH v. U.0.l. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 931
simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this A
country". The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is
hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such
activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person
by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable
care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the
very nature of the activity carried on". Consequently the polluting
B
industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused
by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary
measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the af-
fected areas". The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this c
Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment
extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also
the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation
of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable
Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the D
individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged
ecology.

The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle
have been accepted as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of
the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal E
liberty. Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution are as
under:

"47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the
standard of living and to improve public health. - The State F
shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard ofliving of its people and the improvement of public
health as among its primary duties and in particular, the State
shall endeavour to bring about prohibition or the consump-
tion except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and
of drugs which are injurious to health. G

48A. Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life. - The State shall en-
deavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 51A(g). To protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures.

Apart from the constitutional mandate to protect and improve
the environment there are plenty of post independence legislations
B
on the subject but more relevant enactments for our purpose are
: the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the
Water Act), The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1986 (the Air Act) and the Environment Protection Act) 1986.
(The Environment Act). The Water Act provides for the constitu·
c tion of the Central Pollution Control Board by the Central Govern·
men! and the constitution of the State Pollution Control Boards
by various State Governments in the Country. The Boards function
under the control of the Governments concerned. The Water Act
prohibits the use of streams and wells for disposal of polluting
matters. Also provides for restrictions on outlets and discharge of
D
effluents without obtaining consent from the Board. Prosecution
and penalties have been provided which include sentence of im-
prisonment. The Air Act provides that the Central Pollntion Con·
trol Board and the State Pollution Control Boards constituted
under the Water Act shall also perform the powers and functions
E under the Air Act. The main function of the Boards, under the
Air Act•is to improve the quality of the air and to prevent, control
and abate air pollution in the Country. We shall deal With the •
Environment Act in the later part of this jndgment.

F In view of the above mentioned constitutional and statutory
provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary
principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environ·
ment law of the country."

We are of the view that before any shrimp industry or shrimp pond
G is permitted to be installed in the ecology fragile coastal area it must pass
through a strict environmental test. There has to be a high powered
"Authority" under the Act to scrutinise each and every case from the
environmental point of view, there must be an environmental, impact
assessment before per-mission is granted to instal commercial shrimp
H farms. The conceptual framework of the assessment must be broad-based
S. JAGANNAIB v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,].] 933

primarily concerning environmental degradation linked with shrimp farm- A
ing. The assessment must also include the social impact on different
population strata in the area. The quality of the assessment must be
analytically based on superior technology. It must take into considerational
the inter-generation equity and the compensation for those who are af-
fected and prejudiced. B
Before parting with this judgment, we may notice the "Dollar" based
argument advanced before us. It was contended before us by the learned
counsel appearing for the shrimp acquaculture industry that the industry
has achieved singular distinction by earning maximum foreign exchange in
the country. Almost 100 per cent of the produce is exported to America, c
Europe and Japan and as such the industry has a large potential to earn
"Dollars". That may be so, but the farm-raised production of shrimp is
much lesser than the wild-caught production. The UN Report shows the
world production of shrimp ftom 1982 to 1993 as under :

"Table 1 : World. Production of Shrimp D

Thousands of metric tons
Year Farm-raised Wild-caught Total
1982 84 1,652 1,736
1983 143 1,683 1,826 E
1984 174 1,733 1,907
1985 213 1,908 2,121
1986 309 1,909 2,218
1987 551 1,733 2,284
1988 604 1,914 2,518
1989 611 1,832 2,443
F
1990 633 1,968 2,601
1991 690 2,118 2,808
1992 721 2,191 2,912
1993 610 2,100 2,710"

It is obvious from the figures quoted above that farm- raised production G
of shrimp is of very small quantity as compared to wild-caught. Even if
some of the shrimp culture farms which are polluting the environment, are
closed, the production of shrimp by environmentally friendly techniques
would not be affected and there may not be any loss to the economy
specially in view of the finding given by NEER! that the damage caused to H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A ecology and economics by the acquaculture farming is higher than the
earnings from the sale of coastal acquaculture produce. That may be the
reason for the European and American countries for not permitting their
sea-coasts to be exploited for shrimp-culture farming. The UN report - ->
shows that 80% of the farm - cultured - shrimp comes from the developing
countries of Asia.
B
We, therefore, order and directed as under :

1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Sec-
tion 8(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on
c the said authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically
fragile coastal areas, sea shore, water front and other coastal areas and
specially to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture industry
in coastal States Union Territories. The authority shall be headed by a
retired Judge of the High Court. Other members preferably with expertise
in the field of acquaculture, pollution control and environment protection
D shall be appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government
shall confer on the said authority the powers to issue direction under
Section 5 of the Act and for. taking measures with respect to the matter
referred to in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of sub-section
(2) of Section 3, the Central Government shall constitute the authority
E before January 15, 1997.

2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall
implement "the Precautionary principle" and "the Polluter Pays" principles.

3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the
F prohibition contained in para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp
culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation
zone as defined in the CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to, all seas,
bays, estuaries, creeks rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply
to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies (as defined in
Alagarswarni report) which are practised in the coastal low lying areas.
G
4. All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp cul- ~~

ture ponds operating/set up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under
the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said area
before March 31, 1997. We direct the Superintendent of Police/Deputy
H Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate/Collector of the area
S.JAGANNA1H v. U.O.l. [KULDIP SINGH,].] 935

to enforce this direction and close/demolish all acquaculture in- A
dustriesfshrimp culture industries, shrimp culture ponds on or before
March 31, 1997. A compliance report is this respect shall be filed in this
Court by these authorities before April 15, 1997.

5. The farmers who are operating traditional and. improved tradition-
al systems of acquaculture may adopt improved technology for increased B
production productivity and return with prior approval on the "authority"
constituted by this order.

6. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest
lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public C
purposes shall not be used/converted for construction of the shrimp culture
ponds.

7. No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp cul-
ture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake
and Pulicat lake (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and D
Nelapattu).

8. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds already operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter
shall be closed and demolished before March 31, 1997. We direct the
Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police and the District
E
Magistrate/Collector of the area to enforce this Direction and
close/demolish all acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries,
shrimp culture ponds on or before March 1997. A compliance report in
this respect shall be filed in this Court by these authorities before April 15,
1997. F
9. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds other than traditional and improved traditional may be set up/con-
structed outside the coastal regulation zone as defined by the CRZ
notification and outside 1000 meter of Chilka and Pulicat lakes with the
prior approval of the "authority" as constituted by this Court. Such in- G
dustries which are already operating in the said areas shall contain
authorisation from the "Authority" before April 30, 1997 failing which the
industry concerned shall stop functioning with effect from the said date.
We further direct that any acquaculture activity including intensive and
semi- intensive which has the effect of causing salinity of soil, or the H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A drinking water or wells and/or by the use of chemical reeds increases
shrimp or prawn production with consequent increase in sedimentation ••
which, on putrefaction is a potential health hazard, apart from causing
siltation turbidity of water courses and estuaries with detrimental implica-
tion on local fauna and flora shall not be allowed by the aforesaid
Authority.
B
10. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture
ponds which have been functionin!;'operating within the coastal regulation
zone as defined by the CRZ Notification and Within 1000 meter from
Chilka and Pulicat Lakes shall be liable to compensate 'the affected
C persons on the basis of the "polluter pays" principle.

11. The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after
giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecol-
ogy/environment of the affected areas and of the individuals/families who
have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation
D to be paid to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further
determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of
reversing the damaged environment. The authority shall lay down just and
fair procedure for completing the exercise.

E 12. The authority shall compute the compensation under two heads
namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A state-
ment showing the total amount to be recovered, the names of the polluters
from whom the amount is to be recovered, the amount recovered from each
polluter, the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid and the
amount payable to each of them shall be forwarded to the Collector/Dis-
F trict Magistrate of the area concerned. The Collector/District Magistrate
shall, recover the amount from the polluters, if necessary, as arrears of land
revenue. He shall disburse the compens~tion awarded by the authority to
the affected persons/families.

G 13. We further direct that any violation or non-compliance of the
direction of this Court shall attract the provision of the Contempt of Courts
Act in addition. ---·

14. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be
deposited under a separate head called "Environment Protection Fund"
H and shall be utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by
S.JAGANNATii v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 937

. the authority and also for restoring the damaged environment.

15. The authority, in consultation with expert bodies like NEER!,
A

Central Pollution Control board, respective State Pollution Control Boards
shall frame scheme/schemes for reversing the damage caused to the ecol-
ogy and environment by pollutions in the coastal State/Union Territories.
The scheme/schemes so framed shall be executed by the respective State B
Governments/Union Territory Governments under the supervision of the
Central Government. The expenditure shall be met from the "Environment
Protection Board and from other sources provided by the respective State
Governments/Union Territory Governments and the Central Government.

16. The workmen employed in the shrimp culture industries which
c
are to be closed in terms of this order, shall be deemed to have been
retrenched with effect from April 30, 1997 provided they have been in
continuous service (as defined in Section 25B of the industrial Dispntes
Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industry concerned before the
said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-B of the D
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addi-
tion, six year's wages as additional compensation. The compensation shall
be paid to the workmen before May 31, 1997. The gratuity amount payable
to the workmen shall be paid in addition.

The writ petition is allowed with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. E
1,40,000 (Ruppes one lac forty thousand) to be paid by the States of
Gujarat. Maharashtra, Orissa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and
West Bengal in equal shares of Rs. 20,000 each. The amount of Rs. 1,40,000
realised from the seven coastal States shall be paid to Mr. M.C. Mehta,
Advocate who has assisted us in this case throughout. We place on record F
our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Mehta.

T.N.A. Petition allowed.