Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Asha Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 30 July, 2010
On the strength of the aforesaid reports, it was urged that the adverse
effects of electro-magnetic radiation cannot be brushed aside as mere
misplaced apprehensions. There is an element of clear and present danger.
In these circumstances, on the basis of "precautionary principle", the
possible health hazards and risk to the lives of numerous persons, the
installation of the TCS/BS and Equipments for Telecommunication
Network in densely populated human habitation is required to be
prohibited, urged the learned counsel for the petitioners.
44 The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 joined the issue. The
learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed a very strong reliance upon the
judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Asha Mishra Vs. State
5
Of U.P. And Others not only for the legal proposition expounded therein
but also for the reason that the report of the aforesaid Standing Committee
as well as the report of a Professor Girish Kumar, were extensively
5 Public Interest Litigation No. 48084 of 2015
Shraddha Talekar PS 32/41
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 03:30:03 :::
33 WP.2800.2015===JUDGMENT.doc
considered therein in the light of the subsequent developments.
45 The Allahabad High Court, in the aforesaid case of Smt. Asha
Mishra, had considered the question of restraining of the installation of
mobile towers and 4G Base Transmission Stations (BTS's) on the identical
ground of perceived ill effects of the electro-magnetic radiation generated
therefrom. In the said case, the Allahabad High Court considered a report
of 13 Member Expert Committee on the various issues highlighted in the
report of Professor Girish Kumar. After adverting to the issues highlighted
by Professor Girish Kumar and the remarks/comments thereon of the
Expert Committee and its conclusion to the effect that there was no
scientific evidence which may justify the perception of electro-magnetic
radiation adversely affecting human health or well-being, the Allahabad
High Court negatived the challenge based on the report of Professor Girish
Kumar.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017
47 It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the analysis,
referred to in the report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on
Wildlife including Birds and Bees (extracted above), majority of studies
have shown impact of electro-magnetic radiation on humans, and,
therefore, the permission for erecting the TCS/BS and installation of
Equipments for Telecommunication Network is required to be stalled.
48 We are unable to accede to this submission. The issue cannot be
tested on the numerical strength of the reports without examining the
nature of the scientific material and findings therein. It would be too
simplistic way to deal with the issue. Unfounded and unsubstantiated
claims do not command scientific weight. The mere fact that in majority of
studies adverted to in the aforesaid Report some or other impact of the
electro-magnetic waves was found on humans does not justify the
Shraddha Talekar PS 34/41
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 03:30:03 :::
35 WP.2800.2015===JUDGMENT.doc
conclusion that the electro-magnetic radiation emanating from TCS/BS has
adverse and ill effects on human health and well-being.
49 The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a
judgment of the Rajashtan High Court in case of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.)
6
& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Rajasthan High Court has
upheld the validity of the bye-laws framed by the State Government to
prohibit the installation of towers on play grounds, hospitals and places
within vicinity of 500 mtrs. from jail premises and also near ancient
monuments and old heritage buildings, as being neither illegal nor
arbitrary. The aforesaid ruling does not assist the case of the petitioner. In
the said case, the situation was converse. The validity of the duly framed
bye-laws, which restricted the erection of the TCS/BS and installation of
Equipments for Telecommunication Network, was under challenge therein.
In the case at hand, the State Government has taken a policy decision to
permit the erection of TCS/BS and installation of Equipments for
Telecommunication Network with certain conditions. Thus, the aforesaid
judgment will be of no assistance to the petitioners.
50 It would be contextually relevant to trace the development of the
regulatory regime over a period of time based on orders passed by various
6 DB PIL Petition No. 2774/2012
Shraddha Talekar PS 35/41
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 03:30:03 :::
36 WP.2800.2015===JUDGMENT.doc
High Courts as well as the reports submitted by the Expert Committees/
Parliamentary Standing Committees on the possible threat of electro-
magnetic radiation :-
Muktipark Co Operative Society - Part - ... vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 3 on 5 September, 2014
In the case of Muktipark Co Operative Society Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation 7, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, after
referring to the judgments of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in
the case of Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat
and Ors.8 agreed with the observations therein that the electro-magnetic
radiation emanating from the Base Stations were unlikely to pose a risk to
health. The Gujarat High Court went a step ahead to observe that the
public at large be informed that there is no reason for them to fear of
erection of Base Stations and telephone towers and thereby dispel the
impression in the mind of common man that the mobile towers have the
potential to cause health hazard due to emission of radio active waves.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1996
"36 We shall next elaborate the new concept of burden of proof
referred to in the Vellore case at p.658 (1996 (5) SCC 647). In that
case, Kuldip Singh, J. stated as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 121 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Reliance Infocom Ltd. vs Chemanchery Grama Panchayat on 12 October, 2006
In the case of Muktipark Co Operative Society Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation 7, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, after
referring to the judgments of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in
the case of Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat
and Ors.8 agreed with the observations therein that the electro-magnetic
radiation emanating from the Base Stations were unlikely to pose a risk to
health. The Gujarat High Court went a step ahead to observe that the
public at large be informed that there is no reason for them to fear of
erection of Base Stations and telephone towers and thereby dispel the
impression in the mind of common man that the mobile towers have the
potential to cause health hazard due to emission of radio active waves.
A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) & Others on 27 January, 1999
54 In the light of the aforesaid material and the judicial
pronouncements, which, by and large, are based on the similar challenges,
Expert Reports, Parliamentary Standing Committees Reports and the
prevalent regulatory regime, we are not inclined to take a different view of
the matter. We are of the view that there is a consistent judicial opinion,
speaking through various judgments of the High Courts, about the absence
of any scientific material or data to warrant the prohibition on installation
of TCS/BS and Equipments for Telecommunication Network.
9 W.P. No.24976 of 2008 & connected petitions. dt.5.03.2015
Shraddha Talekar PS 40/41
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 03:30:03 :::
41 WP.2800.2015===JUDGMENT.doc
55 Having examined the matters on the anvil of special burden of proof
in environmental cases, as expounded by the Supreme Court, in the case of
A. P. Pollution Control Board (Supra), we find that the scientific material, as
of today, does not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account
of non-ionized radiation emanating from TCS/BS and Equipments for
Telecommunication Network. Thus, we are not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of
apprehensions which are not rooted in the facts and supported by reliable
scientific material.