this case illustrates the limitations of judicial activism in overcoming challenges
that should ideally be dealt with by the executive or the legislature in a democracy.
InNarmada Bachao Andolanv.Union of India,^123 while the Supreme Court
declined to reduce the height of a dam on the Narmada river (as requested by the
petitioner, an NGO that has led the mass movement against the construction of
the dam), it gave directions to the concerned state governments to rehabilitate
the project oustees. On other occasions, the court has directed the government to
ensure that no hazardous industry is established within a ten-kilometre radius of
certain reservoirs,^124 that there is an adequate supply of compressed natural gas for
buses and taxis operating in Delhi,^125 that no unsustainable mining activity takes
place near the Aravalli hill^126 and that illegally imported waste oil stored in contain-
ers is expeditiously destroyed by incineration.^127 InTirupur Dyeing Factory Owners
Associationv.Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association,^128 the court directed
the association of dyeing factory owners to not cause any pollution to the Noyyal
river in the state of Tamil Nadu, to bear the expenses of removing the sludge from
the river and dam, and to pay compensation to people affected by pollutants.
In the facts and circumstances of a given case (i.e. deaths by starvation and/or
suicide of employees have taken place by reason of non-payment of salary for a long
time), the Supreme Court held that the state of Bihar is vicariously liable for
payment of arrears of salaries to the employees of state-owned corporations,
public-sector undertakings or statutory bodies. It also upheld the constitutional
validity of a law that disqualified a person with more than two children from
contesting, or holding, elective office inpanchayats.^129
In order to curb the menace of ragging in educational institutions, the Supreme
Court issued several guidelines in 2001 in exercise of its power under Articles 32 and
142 of the Constitution.^130 The court offered a definition of ragging, prescribed
detailed steps to curb this practice and laid down diverse modes of punishment that
educational authorities may take. In November 2006 , the court constituted the
Raghavan Committee to suggest remedial measures to tackle the problem of
ragging in educational institutions. In its order of 11 February 2009 , the Supreme
Court stated that ragging is a human rights abuse^131 and directed all state
(^123) ( 2000 ) 10 SCC 664. The court recognised that there is an FR to drinking water.
(^124) AP Pollution Control Board (II)v.M.V. Nayudu( 2001 ) 2 SCC 62.
(^125) M.C. Mehtav.Union of India 2002 AIR 1696 :( 2002 ) 4 SCC 356.
(^126) M.C. Mehtav.Union of India( 2004 ) 12 SCC 118. See alsoM.C. Mehtav.Union of India
( 2006 ) 11 SCC 582.
(^127) Research Foundation for Science Technology & Natural Resources Policyv.Union of India
AIR 2005 SC 1162.
(^128) Civil Appeal No 6776 of 2009 (decided on 6 October 2009 ).
(^129) Kapila Hingoroniv.State of Bihar( 2003 ) 6 SCC 1 ;Javedv.State of Haryana( 2003 ) 8 SCC 369.
(^130) Vishwa Jagriti Missionv.Central GovernmentAIR 2001 SC 2793.
(^131) University of Keralav.Council of Principals of Colleges of Kerala, arising out of SLP(C)
24295 of 2004 , paras. 8 and 12.