Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In bunch of public interest litigations (PIL) raising serious concerns regarding odour, smoke, pollution and severe health hazards emanating from the dumping activities carried on Kanjurmarg dumping ground by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), a Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ., directed the committee to implement urgent mitigating measures to prevent pollution as a large number of citizens continue to be affected by pollution from the dumping ground.
The present batch of PILs were not confined to isolated complaints but questioned the systemic failure of municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, particularly the continued operation of dumping grounds within densely inhabited urban areas, allegedly in breach of environmental norms and constitutional guarantees.
Vide order dated 30-06-2025, the Court noted that the petition involved “seminal issues of immense public importance inter alia in regard to disposal of municipal solid waste,” with the Kanjurmarg dumping ground forming the core of the controversy. The Court opined that the State Government and municipal authorities must give “a serious thought on the consequences of municipal dumping grounds being located in the city areas and more particularly when they are surrounded by large human habitation.”
The Court noted that there cannot be an adhocism on such issues, especially when lakhs of citizens were being subjected to intolerable pollution. It categorically observed that pollution from dumping grounds does not remain localised, but “would also pollute other parts of the city by the air currents, and contribute to the overall pollution which already exists in a large city like Mumbai.” The Court emphasised that “only those who suffer such pollution know their plight.”
The Court further asserted that if such pollution was indeed causing intolerable suffering, it would amount to a “gross failure on the part of the municipal machinery, in protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens to have a clean and pollution free environment.”
Considering that the issue was “touching the basic human rights of the citizens”, the Court, vide order 08-07-2025, directed that the matter be examined at the highest level of the State administration and constituted a High-Level Committee comprising of the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Urban Development), the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, and if necessary, commissioners of adjoining municipal corporations.
The Court directed the committee to place before it “the blue print of the robust steps” intended to resolve the woes of a large segment of society adversely affected by dumping activities. The Court observed that these were “issues of immense public importance requiring urgent consideration at the highest level,” therefore, participation of stakeholders, including petitioners and representatives of the Environment and Forest Department, also needed.
When the matter was taken up subsequently on 26-11-2025, the Court expressed surprise and concern that despite clear and categorical orders, the committee had failed to dispose of any grievances. The Court directed that a specific meeting of the committee be held on a fixed date, with a mandate that all applications and grievances be taken up and appropriate decisions taken, after prior consultation with and guidance of the Deputy Chief Minister.
Vide order dated 11-12-2025, the Court recorded that a Government Resolution dated 08-12-2025 had finally constituted the committee. However, the Court was informed that “complaints are made by thousands of citizens on a daily basis, of severe health hazards being caused by the pollution generated from the Kanjurmarg Dumping Ground.”
The Court categorically held that “it cannot be a situation that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, is being violated by such pollution as generated from the said dumping ground.” Stressing on the urgency of the matter, the Court directed the committee to undertake an impromptu site visit, assess ground realities, and suggest short-term urgent measures to be immediately implemented by MCGM and MPCB to prevent pollution.
The Court emphasised that the constitutional guarantee conferred on citizens demanded “utmost expediency, the issues being very serious” and directed the committee to not wait for the orders of this Court and implement urgent mitigating measures.
[Vanashakti v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, Public Interest Litigation No. 63 of 2019, Decided on 11-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Zaman Ali, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rohan Mirpury, Ms. Anjali Ghuge i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, Counsel for the BMC
Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Shaba N. Khan, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Ms. Purnima Kantharia, G. P. with Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P., Counsel for the State
Mr. Anil D. Yadav, Counsel for the Union of India
Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr. Subit Chakrabarti i/b Vidhi Partners, Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 and 7
Ms. Radha Bhandari a/w Shruti Singh i/b M V Kini & Co., Counsel for the Respondent No. 8