CRITICAL LEGAL APPRAISAL OF THE BAGHJAN OIL EXPLOSION

Madhubanti Sadhya, CEERA, NLSIU

Nausheen Khan, LL.B. 2nd Yr., Campus Law Centre,University of Delhi

Baghjan is a village located in Tinsukia District of Assam, in the midst of large reserves of natural gas found in the Brahmaputra Basin. It is the site of one of an oil field set up by Oil India Limited (OIL) comprising of 17 oil wells and 5 gas wells, situated very close to the eco-sensitive zone of the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park.  At around 10:30 A.M. a gas well at the oilfield started spewing natural gas uncontrollably. After two weeks of continuous release of toxic substances, a fire erupted on 9^th June, causing the death of two employees of the OIL. On 19^th June, the Pollution Control Board of Assam issued a closure notice to OIL for its operations including the drilling operations at Baghjan oilfield and to take expedient steps to extinguish the raging fire.[1]

A second explosion occurred on 22^nd July, injuring 3 foreign experts employed by OIL to mitigate the harm being caused by the continuous fire and leakage[2]. According to a news report, OIL has suspended two employees for alleged negligence of duty at the site, and has issued a show-cause notice to John Energy Pvt. Ltd, the outsourced private operator of the well.[3]

A slew of petitions by various environmental activists, NGOs and students have since been filed at the High Court, Supreme Court and the NGT for the same. The NGT has invoked S. 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010[4] to adjudicate the matter, being satisfied that the cases involve substantial questions relating to environment.

Till date, there have been three NGT orders, which will be examined in detail in this article. The following chart shows the timeline of events, giving a chronological view of the developments in the case up till now:

TIMELINE:

27th May, 2020	Around 10:30 A.M. on 27th May, 2020 a blowout occurred at the Baghjan Oilfield of OIL India Limited in Tinsukia District, Assam. The released toxins included propane, methane, propylene and other gases causing damage to environment, life, property and livelihoods.
9th June, 2020	Inflammable natural gas caught fire on 9th June, claiming the lives of two fire fighters and leaving behind huge volumes of residue as gas condensate which is toxic for land and vegetation and is also carcinogenic in humans.
24th June, 2020	1. Two petitions[5] regarding the blowout and the subsequent explosions were jointly taken up for hearing at Principal Bench of NGT at New Delhi. The first petition was filed by Mr. Bonani Kakkar, an environmentalist who alleged failure of the authorities including OIL and others in preventing the incident. The second petition was filed by Wild Life and EnvironmentConservation Organisation which is an NGO working for community awareness in Assam. The allegations, which are common to both the petitions, include extensive damage to wildlife, vegetation, human life and property and widespread human displacement and loss of livelihood due to the negligence of OIL. The petitions also invoked the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle of environmental law, and also the public trust doctrine. 2. In the order[6] given by the NGT on 24th June, 2020, an Expert Committee was constituted by it to conduct an investigation, gather facts and fix liability with Justice B.P. Katakey, former Judge of the Guahati High Court as Chairman and 7 other members (including representatives from CPCB, CSIR, Guwahati University, State Biodiversity Board, ONGCL, State PCB and the District Magistrate, Tinsukia District). The Committee was given 30 days’ time to submit a preliminary report. 3. The NGT in the same order instructed OIL to deposit Rs. 25 Crores with the District Magistrate at Tinsukia, as an interim amount to meet the cost of remediation of damage to environment, biodiversity, human life, wildlife and public health.[7]
2nd July, 2020	A petition filed by OIL challenging proceedings at NGT on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was dismissed. However, the order dated 24th June was partially modified removing the requirement of deposit of Rs. 25 Crores, noting that OIL had already set apart more than that amount and being a public sector undertaking there will be no difficulty in promptly making available whatever amount is required for discharge of its liability.[8]
22nd July, 2020	Another explosion occurred at the site of the leakage, resulting in injury to three experts engaged by OIL to douse the fire.
24th July, 2020	The Committee filed its preliminary report based on consultation with various experts, government bodies, and the stakeholders including the affected community and activists.
29th July, 2020	The preliminary report submitted by the Committee came up for consideration at the NGT. However, it was deferred to 6th August to allow time to OIL to file objections to the report.
6th August, 2020	The report, discussed in detail below, came up for consideration and was accepted by the NGT in its totality, allowing for adjustment of amount of interim compensation with the amount already disbursed by OIL. The objections filed by OIL to the report were rejected. The next date of hearing is fixed for 3rd November, before which the Committee will submit its final report.

 

Impact on Flora and Fauna: The petitions[9] being heard at the NGT allege that the released gas is a mix of propane, methane, propylene and other gases, which will affect the bamboo groves, tea gardens, banana trees and betel nut trees. According to the order of the NGT dated 24^th June[10], the harmful condensate from the blowout has reached the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park which has “over 40 mammals 500 species of birds, 104 fish species, 105 butterfly species and 680 types of plants, including a wide variety of rare orchids… harbours the tiger, elephant, wild buffalo, leopard, hoolock gibbon, capped langur, slow loris, Gangetic dolphin, besides critically endangered bird species such as the Bengal Florican, White Winged Duck, Greater Adjutant stork, White rumped vulture, slender billed vulture as well as the rare and endemic Black-breasted parrotbill.” The blowout has also caused a film of oil to form on the surface of the Dibru river which flows into the Maguri-Motapung wetland which is a Bird and Biodiversity area of high significance. Both, the Maguri-Motapung wetland and the Dibro-Saikhowa National Park are part of the larger Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve (DSBR) which hosts “vulnerable species like Swamp Francolin, Marsh Babbler, Greater Adjutant and Pallas’s Fish-eagle, Red-headed Vulture and White-bellied Heron, and over 80 species of fish.” Additionally, river Dibru remains contaminated, causing threat to the Gangetic Dolphin that resides in the Brahmaputra river system, of which it is a tributary.

Impact on Human Life: The blowout and the subsequent explosions have led to the accumulation of large volumes of toxic gas condensate which is harmful for land and vegetation. It is also a known carcinogenic substance. Apart from the health impacts, the incident has stripped thousands in the area of their livelihood, especially those engaged in agriculture, fishing and animal rearing. 1610 families were displaced as per the data presented in the order of the NGT dated 2^nd July, 2020[11]. More than 9000 people have been evacuated from the nearby villages and accommodated in 12 relief camps. The substances released are known to have adverse long-term impact on land and groundwater, and pose a serious human health and environmental health risk in the long term.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE NGT:

The petitions[12]being heard at the NGT raise several grounds for liability. The underlying idea behind all the allegations is the tort principle of Negligence.

The various grounds are listed below:

• The OIL has violated the Precautionary Principle and is liable to pay compensation under the Polluter Pays principle under Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010.[13]
• It is also in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine as OIL, being a public sector undertaking, had a duty to take due precaution/care.[14]
• There was no mitigation plan despite the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife which had asked OIL to provide a legal undertaking about the environmental safeguards in place, specifying the nature and extent of their liabilities in case of accident harming the wetland in question.[15]
• There had been no comprehensive impact assessment regarding continuation of operation of OIL fields in the vicinity of the biodiversity-rich Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The post-blowout comprehensive study conducted by the Wildlife Institute of India on 11^th June, 2020 held the OIL responsible for the incident.[16]
• Negligence and lapses on the part of OIL have resulted in irreparable damage to the community and the natural environment and wildlife in the eco-sensitive zone. It has caused loss of property, life, wildlife, livelihood, vegetation soil quality and has severe known long term human-health and environmental impacts.[17]
• The laws violated include the Environment Protection Act, 1986; Forest conservation Act, 1980; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; Biological Diversity Act 1992;The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989; Environmental Impact Assessment Rules, 2006.

In the first order dated 24^th June, 2020[18], the NGT accepted the matter as falling within its jurisdiction as it involves substantial questions relating to the environment, under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010. In the same order, an expert Committee was constituted to look into the various aspects of the incident, its impact on the environment, human life, property and livelihood, and to determine liability and OIL was instructed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 crores with the District Magistrate at Tinsukia. However, on application for modification of this order, the NGT on 2^nd July[19]removed this requirement, noting that amount exceeding Rs. 25 crore had already been set aside by OIL for restoration, relief and rehabilitation work.

On 6^th August[20], the 406-page preliminary report of the Committee came up for consideration at the NGT. The findings and interim recommendations of the report were accepted by the NGT, allowing for adjustment of the stipulated amount of interim compensation to be adjusted with the amount already disbursed to the victims by OIL. The findings and recommendations of the Committee are summarised briefly below:

Cause of Accident: The accident was caused by failure to follow proper safety procedure for removal of blowout preventer without having a confirmed and tested secondary safety barrier. Further, there was a lack of coordination between the planning and execution of operation, deviating from the Standard Operating Procedure. There was also lack of proper supervision by those responsible.

Impact: The incident has caused “extensive damage to both the publicly owned resources including the Maguri-Motapung wetland, DSNP, the eco sensitive zone including the water bodies, air, wildlife and the natural resources surrounding it. Additionally, it has caused irreparable physical harm and damage to privately owned property of the survivors in the affected villages.” The report also relies on tests and evaluations carried out by Wildlife Institute of India, which state that high levels of carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) pollutants were released into the ecosystem and would remain in the system for a long time. The PAH pollutants that were found in the ecosystem surrounding the Site of incident would eventually percolate into the ground and even contaminate ground water.[21]

Lack of compliance with environment safeguards: The report lists out various statutory requirements which were not fulfilled by OIL prior to commencement of operations at Baghjan, as well as during its operation till date. OIL did not have the Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate both under the Section 25 & 26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, when it first started its drilling operations in 2006, on the day of the blowout and the subsequent explosion on 9th June, 2020. On the day of the blowout and on the days of the explosions, OIL also did not have the authorization under Rule 6 of the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.It puts a clear liability upon OIL for the accident, going by the principle of absolute liability which was laid down in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[22] and the Bhopal Gas leak case[23].

OIL had contravened the provisions Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 under which it is mandatory to obtain Environmental Clearance for any offshore drilling projects before commencement of activities on 20.11.2006. The Committee found no record of any biodiversity impact assessment, even after the commencement of operations, in clear violation of order dated 07.09.2017 in I.A. No. 3934 in W.P. (C) No. 202of 1995[24]of the Supreme Court that mandated biodiversity impact assessment and clearance under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 for drilling in proximity to the Dibru–Saikhowa National Park.

Further, the lack of Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate to carry out drilling and testing of hydrocarbons at Baghjan is in clear violation of the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance which was recently granted to OIL on 11^th May, 2020.

Interim Recommendations: The report suggested some immediate preventive measures such as isolation of hydro carbon bearing zone, proper cement slurry design, placement of secondary safety barrier, placement of cement plug preparation of contingency plan, etc. It also highlighted that there is a great difference in the operation of Gas wells as compared to oil wells, stating the need for a separate Standard Operating Procedure for gas wells.

For providing interim compensation, the Committee categorised the affected families into three categories with different amounts fixed for each:

• Those whose houses have been completely gutted by the fire thereby causing grave injury to life and health, loss of livelihood, cultivable land, livestock, damage to standing crops and horticulture, fisheries etc. Families falling under this category will be paid Rs. 25 Lacs interim compensation.
• Those whose houses have been severely damaged thereby causing grave injury to life and health, loss of livelihood, cultivable land, livestock, damage to standing crops and horticulture, fisheries etc. Those falling under this category will be paid Rs. 10 Lacs interim compensation.
• Those whose houses have been moderately/partially damaged or whose standing crops and horticulture have been partially damaged thereby causing injury to life and health, loss of livelihood, cultivable land, livestock, damaged to fisheries etc.Those falling under this category will be given 2.5 Lacs interim compensation.

Additionally, as an immediate relief measure, Rs. 30,000 will be paid to those families which were displaced as a result of the initial blowout on 27^th May, 2020; and Rs. 25,0000 will be paid to those families which were displaced in the wake of the explosion of 9^th June, 2020.[25]

 

Liability: The Committee did not give any findings as to who is liable for the incident, although an indication was made toward OIL and the third-party contractor John Energy Pvt. Ltd. The Committee will set up a multidisciplinary team including community members and experts on environment which will formulate a restoration plan for the Maguri-Motapung wetland and ascertain the damages and the compensation. It has stated that the principle of polluter pays will be followed while fixing liability for restoration of the ecosystem.^[26] The final liability will be fixed in the final report which will be submitted in November.

 

OIL raised certain objections to the findings of the report, which were all rejected by the NGT in its order dated 6^th August, 2020[27]. Some objections which were raised include -the observations of the Committee are based on review of secondary data and no site visit was undertaken, the Report of the Wildlife Institute of India (WWI), which is relied upon and cited by the Expert Committee report, is based on post blowout incident and thus not reliable, the fault is of the contractor and not of the OIL, etc. The objections, interestingly, also state that EC was not required at the time operations of OIL commenced as the project value was less than Rs. 50 crores.

Another preliminary objection was raised as to the jurisdiction of the NGT to deal with the matter while the Gauhati High Court was already looking into it. OIL also challenged the need for the Expert committee constituted on 24^th June, 2020 stating that inquiries by the central and the state governments were underway and that OIL itself had taken remedial measures such as hiring foreign experts to mitigate the situation, providing rehabilitation in camps, providing compensation to the victims, etc. The NGT rejected the arguments of OIL in these challenges, stating that the jurisdiction of the NGT under sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act read with section 20 required the collection of facts independently for the purpose of adjudication and thus the Expert Committee was not unnecessary, as other inquiries are notsubstitutes for the inquiry needed by the NGT to exercise its sui generis jurisdiction. The NGT cited the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan case[28]and the Meghalaya Miningcase[29] in support of this statement. Further, it stated that the jurisdiction of the High Courts may extend to other matters, while that of the NGT is mandated to operate within statutory limitations and that actions undertaken by OIL may be in discharge of its duties toward the victims and it does not affect the exercise of the NGT’s jurisdiction over the matter. [30]

The NGT has accepted all the recommendations of the Committee report and ordered that the amount calculated and quantified by the District Magistrate as per the categorisation in the report shall be made available by the OIL within two weeks of letter of the District Magistrate informing them of the same. It has directed the Committee to file its final report by the next date of hearing which is fixed for 3^rd November, 2020.

BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE

The OIL, being a public sector undertaking of the Government of India was operating in violation of Article48A of the Constitution of India[31] which puts an obligation upon the state to protect and improve the environment, and safeguard wildlife in India. Additionally, the company was also in violation of Article 51A which makes it a fundamental duty of all the citizens of India to protect and improve the natural environment, by failing to take necessary precaution in operating its wells. The OIL has also caused irreversible harm to the environment which violates the right to clean environment which forms part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though these constitutional breaches do not fall within the adjudicative capacity of the NGT as it can only deal with civil cases under the seven laws mentioned in S. 14 and Schedule 1 of the NGT Act, 2010, they are the most fundamental arguments against OIL’s conduct and deserve mention in any discussion on breach of environmental law by a company undertaking hazardous activities. More so in light of the fact that OIL is a public sector undertaking falling under the meaning of state as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

LIABILITY FOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS:

Paragraph 6 of the order of the NGT dated 2nd July, 2020 mentions that the liability of the OIL will have to be measured under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 and the Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996.

Rule 4 of The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 puts a general responsibility on the occupier during any industrial activity. It puts an obligation upon the occupier carrying out an industrial activity to identify major accident hazards and take steps to prevent them and limit their impact on human life and the environment. It also requires the occupier to disburse information, give training and adequate equipment to ensure the safety of the persons working on the site of the potential accident. Further, Rule 13 mandates the preparation of an on-site emergency plan by the occupier detailing the procedure to deal with major accidents on the site of the industrial activity.

These rules were laid down to prevent and mitigate harm caused by chemical accidents from industrial activities. According to a news report[32]which has analysed the need to fix liabilities, the OIL had ignored both requirements stated above. Such carelessness amounts to gross negligence and OIL is clearly liable under the relevant rules which were formulated under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

CONCLUSION:

Several questions remain unanswered while we await the final report of the Expert Committee. However, the fact of immeasurable and irreversible damage to the natural environment, flora and fauna, to human life, property and livelihood is undeniable. What remains to be seen is the extent of the damage, immediate as well as long-term and who is finally made accountable for compensating the loss.

The fact that the drilling project by OIL falls under category A of the EIA Rules, 2006 puts an obligation to conduct public hearing prior to obtaining environmental clearance. However, that was not done in this case and has been justified by OIL on the basis of the value of the project initially being less than Rs. 50 crores. However, later when the Supreme Court ordered biodiversity impact assessment, the same was also not done. In Lafarge Umiam Mining Case (2011)[33], the Supreme Court had highlighted the need for sustainable development and had clarified that environmental clearance must be based on the Doctrine of Proportionality, the legislative policy which governs the activity (The Environment Protection Act in the present instance, along with the Water Act and the Air Act, and the Principles of Natural Justice).[34]These requirements have been largely ignored in subsequent years, leading to accidents such as the one at Baghjan where environmental clearance was granted to OIL for drilling in the area despite risk to the environment due to close proximity to DSBR, without proper impact assessment.

Further, the Public Trust Doctrine which was recognised by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath[35]states that natural resources such as rivers, forests, etc being gifts of nature, are held by the Government in trusteeship for the common use of the public. OIL is a public sector undertaking (PSU) which falls under the meaning of “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Applying the Public Trust Doctrine to a PSU should ideally result in a stricter standard of liability than for private companies due to the fact that the state has a higher responsibility as a trustee of these community resources. Any breach will not only violate environmental law, but will also violate public trust which essentially puts a stricter duty of care on PSUs to avoid harm to the environment.

Being a chemical accident arising out of negligence and a history of violation of legal requirements, the incident is a prime example of environmental tort where the principle of Absolute Liability is the rule. Therefore, in all probability, the liability will be fixed upon OIL as it is the owner of the operations at Baghjan. The OIL can also be held liable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 as it was one of the conditions laid down in the environmental clearance granted to it by the MoEFCC. It can also be made to pay exemplary damages in keeping with the spirit of environment protection by invoking the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle and sustainable development principle, in addition to the public trust doctrine as it has caused widespread and irreversible damage to community resources such as the Dibru river, the Dibru-Saikhowal National Park, the agricultural land, the water and air quality and livelihood resources including fisheries and forest resources.

[1]Avik Chakraborty, OIL to Approach Gauhati High Court Challenging PCBA’s BaghjanOil Field Shut Down Order, NORTH EAST NOW (Aug. 12, 2020, 10:37 P.M.), https://nenow.in/north-east-news/assam/oil-to-approach-gauhati-high-court-challenging-pcbas-baghjan-oil-field-shut-down-order.html.

[2] Amit Chaturvedi, Huge explosion near Baghjan oil well in Assam, 3 foreign experts injured, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Aug. 12, 2020, 07:45 P.M.), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/huge-explosion-near-baghjan-oil-well-in-assam-3-foreign-experts-injured/story-aqT12p78JewpkBv89MYigI.html.

[3] Auto Generated news feed,Gauhati HC dismisses PIL on Assam gas well tragedy, OUTLOOK INDIA (Aug. 13, 2020, 4: 37 P.M.) https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/gauhati-hc-dismisses-pil-on-assam-gas-well-tragedy/1864884.

[4]The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, No. 19 of 2010.

[5]O.A. No. 43/2020/EZAndO.A. No. 44/2020/EZ

[6]In Order dated 24^th June, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), Para No. 15.

[7]Ibid at Para No. 21.

[8]Order dated 2^nd July, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), para no. 8.

[9]O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ And O.A. No. 44/2020/EZ.

[10]Order dated 24^th June, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), para no. 3-6.

[11]Order dated 2^nd July, 2020 in Bonani  Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), Para No. 2

[12]O.A. No. 43/2020/EZ And O.A. No. 44/2020/EZ.

[13]Order dated 24th June, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), Para No. 8

[14]Ibid at Para No. 8

[15]Ibid at Para No. 10

[16]Ibid at, Para No. 11

[17]Ibid at Para No. 7

[18]Ibid at Para No. 12

[19]Order dated 2nd July, 2020 in Bonani  Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), para no. 8.

[20]Order dated 6^th August, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020).

[21]DTE Staff, Baghjan blowout, fire could have been prevented: Report, DOWN TO EARTH, (Aug. 13, 2020, 5:07 P.M.) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/pollution/baghjan-blowout-fire-could-have-been-prevented-report-72522.

[22]M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.

[23]Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India and Ors., (1989)(1)SCC 674: AIR 1992 SC 248.

[24]Order dated 7^th September, 2017 in I.A. No. 3934 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad vs. Union of India &Ors.

[25]Order dated 6th August, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020).

[26]ET Energy World, Baghjan blowout: Major lapses by Oil India, says expert panel report, ECONOMIC TIMES, (Aug. 13, 2020, 2:13 P.M.) https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/oil-and-gas/baghjan-blowout-expert-panel-report-alleges-major-lapses-by-oil-india/77233838.

[27]Order dated 6th August, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020).

[28] Bhopal Gas PeedithMahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. vs. Union of India,(2012) 8 SCC 326

[29]Abdul Ahad Choudhary vs Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 177

[30]Order dated 2^nd July, 2020 in Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited and Ors., (2020), Para No. 6-7.

[31]Constitution of India, 1950.

[32]Abhishek Chakravarty and Mahesh Menon, Baghjan blowout shows why we need to fix liabilities, DOWN TO EARTH (Aug. 14, 2020, 09:31 P.M.) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/pollution/baghjan-blowout-shows-why-we-need-to-fix-liabilities-71867.

[33]T.N. GodavaramanThirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others SCC 2008 2 222.

[34]Abhishek Chakravarty and Mahesh Menon, Baghjan blowout shows why we need to fix liabilities, DOWN TO EARTH (Aug. 14, 2020, 09:31 P.M.) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/pollution/baghjan-blowout-shows-why-we-need-to-fix-liabilities-71867.

[35]M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath &Ors, (1997) 1 SCC 388.

Featured Image sourced from – Telegraphindia.com