STATE Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant states that he is a citizen of India and is concerned about the alarming rate at which environmental degradation is taking place in the country. It is the case of the applicant that in the past he had filed various cases in respect of air and water pollution in the Supreme Court of India for the protection of cultural heritage of the country. The Supreme Court of India, in those cases, has delivered landmark judgments/orders for the protection of environment, people's lives, health and cultural heritage of India.

(2.) THE applicant had instituted a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 860/1991 titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India before the Supreme Court of India which came to be disposed off by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 22nd November, 1991 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave various directions to the Central and the State Governments for providing compulsory environmental education to the students of schools and colleges throughout the country. Inter -alia, but importantly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had issued Direction No. IV in the said judgment. Direction IV of the judgment dated 22nd November, 1991 reads as under:

(3.) THE University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') on 13th July, 2004 submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they have prepared a common syllabus and the same is being implemented by various educational institutions. The All India Council of Technical Education on 6th August, 2004 informed the Supreme Court that it had already prepared a syllabus which includes 'environmental science' and which is being updated and would be introduced from the next academic year. The syllabus pertaining to environmental education has been prescribed and the guidelines have been framed but according to the applicant, the subject is being taught by teachers who are not qualified in terms of the UGC Guidelines. The teachers who have specialized in Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Electronics, Political Science, Sociology, Mathematics, Physical Education, Home Science, Computer Science etc. have been assigned the task of teaching the subject of environmental science; in the most cosmetic way, which is against the letter and spirit of the judgment/orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is also averred by the applicant that a number of States like the State of Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Mizoram, Delhi and the Union Territory of Chandigarh amongst others have not complied with the directions of the Supreme Court of India, as afore -noticed. None of these States have taken any steps to appoint qualified teachers who are competent to teach environmental science. The eligible teachers are the ones who have qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Environment Science or Ph.D. in terms of UGC guidelines. The whole purpose of making 'Environment' as a compulsory subject, hence, stands defeated. While referring to some of the States, the applicant makes a particular reference to the States of Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir. The applicant stated that except for holding the meetings, the State Governments have not taken any concrete steps for compliance or for implementation of the above directions. In fact, they have been exchanging letters on what should or should not be the qualifications of the teachers who would teach the subject of Environment Science.