The Supreme Court declared it will formally close the long-pending MC Mehta cases from 1984–85, noting that fresh interlocutory applications filed under the same caption created a misleading impression that the original environmental, land, and Taj Trapezium matters were still pending.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court announced its intention to formally close the MC Mehta cases that have lingered on the docket since 1984-85, due to the filing of interlocutory applications (IAs) under the MC Mehta caption.
The original MC Mehta cases address environmental pollution, land issues, and Taj Trapezium pollution.
Although these decisions were issued long ago, new matters involving similar questions were being brought as interlocutory applications under the same MC Mehta banner. Listing these new matters as MC Mehta cases created the misleading impression that the 1985 MC Mehta case remained active.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, emphasized that this practice must end.
The Bench observed,
“It appears that multiple matters are shown as pending under the MC Mehta title even though the principal proceedings were concluded years ago…1984 case was decided decades ago and MAs, IAs are filed in such a manner that shows as if the case is pending. Another MC Mehta case of 1985 was too decided and that too is shown as alive due to IAs and MAs. Another pending plea is Taj Trapezium matter,”
The Bench ordered that the 1984 matter, the 1985 matter, and the Taj Trapezium case be listed on three separate dates, with all interlocutory applications to be addressed on the corresponding dates for those matters.
The Chief Justice proclaimed,
“What is happening in this court? IA after IA is being filed in this court. MC Mehta alone has 85 pending ones. Then you will ask the Parliament how many cases are pending before us. I will not go through such embarrassment!”
The Chief Justice also directed court officials to consider re-captioning methods so disposed matters are not kept on the active docket merely because miscellaneous applications continue to be filed.
The Court said,
“Let the Attorney General for India, Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General inform us how these cases should be recaptioned so that the main cases are not kept alive. Let the identification of cases be also done so that which cases can be transferred to the High Court,”
The Court made clear that no further interlocutory applications would be entertained in the 1985 matter.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES