Supreme Court – Daily Orders
In Re Remediation Of Polluted Rivers vs . State Of Haryana And Others). on 24 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).1/2021
IN: RE REMEDIATION OF POLLUTED RIVERS
O R D E R
1. These suo moto proceedings were initiated by this
Court pursuant to an order dated 13.01.2021 passed by a
three-Judge Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.8/2021 (Delhi Jal
Board vs. State of Haryana and others).
2. While the original matter dealt with increasing levels
of pollution in the Yamuna River, this Court deemed it
appropriate to take suo moto cognizance of the issue of
contamination of rivers by sewage effluents in general. To
that end, this Court also thought it appropriate to first
address the contamination of the Yamuna River. Consequently,
notices were issued to the States of Uttarakhand, Himachal
Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. In addition, the
Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, and the Central Pollution Control Board, were also
impleaded as party respondents.
3. At this juncture, we must preliminarily observe that
Signature Not Verified
there is no gainsaying that the right to live under hygienic
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.28
10:34:06 IST
Reason: conditions in a clean environment is an intrinsic part of
1
the right to human dignity, which is deeply embedded in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, this
Court has, in a catena of decisions, held that clean water
is a basic necessity for the survival of human beings. Thus,
we find that the right to life, along with a plethora of
other human rights, is inter alia guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, and can only be
meaningfully served by providing clean and potable source(s)
of water where there are none.
4. It is doubtless in recognition and furtherance of the
aforestated principles that this Court initiated these suo
moto proceedings.
5. Notably, this Court also took notice of the fact that
under the relevant legislative scheme, namely, the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Central
Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control
Board(s) were statutorily obligated to take all the
necessary remedial measures for ensuring that sewage
effluents of cities are not discharged directly into rivers,
ponds and lakes unless it is completely treated so as not to
deteriorate the quality of water. The necessity of the
establishment of common effluent treatment plant(s), sewage
treatment plant(s), etc., was also duly acknowledged.
Thereafter, the Central Pollution Control Board was directed
as follows:
“18. We direct the CPCB to submit a report
2
identifying municipalities along the river Yamuna,
which have not installed total treatment plants for
sewage as per the requirement or have gaps in
ensuring that the sewage is not discharged untreated
into the river. CPCB may also highlight any other
source of prominent contamination within the limits
of Municipalities. It shall also submit priority-
wise list of Municipalities, river stretches
adjacent to which have been found to be most
polluted.”
6. We may hasten to add that under the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 (in short, the “NGT Act”), the National
Green Tribunal (in short, the “Tribunal”) has been
established, inter alia, to perform numerous judicial/quasi-
judicial duties. The Tribunal is vested with wide
adjudicatory authority under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the
NGT Act to entertain civil cases involving substantial
questions relating to the environment, to grant relief and
compensation for environmental damage, and to pass orders for
restitution of the environment.
7. Needless to say, through the various provisions of the
NGT Act, ample powers have been conferred upon the Tribunal
to ensure that all the stakeholders, particularly the
statutory authorities such as the Pollution Control Boards,
Municipalities and local bodies, perform their duties towards
meticulous compliance with the statutory environmental laws.
8. Adverting to the facts of these proceedings, we find
from the record that in purported performance of its duties
under the NGT Act, the Tribunal had passed certain orders,
essentially directing the Central Pollution Control Board and
other statutory agencies to ensure meticulous compliance with
3
the relevant environment laws and implement the directions
issued by the Tribunal from time to time vis-à-vis the
subject-issues.
9. Be that as it may, much water has flown during the
pendency of these proceedings for the past five years. In the
absence of any latest report on record, we shall refrain from
confidently commenting on any possible improved condition of
the Yamuna river or other ponds, lakes etc. Here, we are
constrained to observe that the statutory obligations of the
Tribunal do not cease to exist merely because of cognizance
taken by this Court. At the same time, the governmental
agencies such as the Pollution Control Board(s) also do not
get absolved from their responsibility only with the issuance
of certain directions.
10. All that we wish to notice presently is that the
protection and de-contamination of our rivers has to be an
ongoing process, not one which can be resolved by one-time
omnibus directions. If the statutory Authorities, concerned
Governments or even private entities find or create any
impediment(s) in giving effect to the provisions of the
environmental laws or the directions issued by the Tribunal,
it is imperative upon the Tribunal to monitor the subject and
ensure that necessary directions are issued from time to time
and status reports are obtained in furtherance of the stated
compliance.
11. Having said that, we are equally cognizant of the fact
that multiple and/or parallel proceedings before different
4
judicial fora create rampant uncertainty and confusion with
respect to the nature or uniformity of the directions.
12. Consequently, it appears to us that, rather than
initiating suo motu proceedings, this Court ought to have
directed the Tribunal to continue monitoring the
implementation of its earlier directions until the intended
objectives were effectively achieved. We say so while
remaining fully conscious that the Tribunal is not the final
adjudicatory forum. Its orders, as well as those of other
statutory authorities, are amenable to challenge by way of
statutory appeals, special leave petitions or appropriate
writ proceedings, and remain subject to judicial review by
this Court.
13. In light of the above, and in view of the admitted
position that little progress has occurred on the ground
since these proceedings were initiated, we are satisfied that
it is high time that the suo moto proceedings should be
closed and the proceedings which were pending before the
Tribunal, which have seemingly been closed, be revived.
14. We, therefore, direct the Central Pollution Control
Board or the agencies of the relevant States, as well as the
Union of India, to submit their respective compliance/status
reports before the NGT, Principal Bench at New Delhi.
Similarly, the original applicants or the intervenors before
this Court shall be at liberty to assist the Tribunal in the
aforementioned matter. The Tribunal shall be free to issue a
fresh set of directions, as may be required, after
5
considering the latest status report of the prevailing
conditions on-site.
15. With liberty and the directions issued hereinabove,
these proceedings stand closed.
16. All pending applications, including intervention
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
6
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).1/2021
IN: RE REMEDIATION OF POLLUTED RIVERS
IA No. 39182/2023 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 39181/2023 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 99277/2023 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 10350/2026 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 100720/2022 – PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON
Date : 24-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Parties: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate (A.C.)
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
By Courts Motion
Applicant-in-person
Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Alok Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Nagpal, Adv.
Mr. B K Satija, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv.
Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv.
Ms. Prabhati Nayak, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sunit Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Singh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR
7
Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G.
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
Mr. Bittu Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Silpi S Swain, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, AOR
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR
Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
Ms. Nivedita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Adv.
Mr. Jns Tyagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
8