SC asks Delhi, Haryana govts for status report on pollution in Yamuna river

The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi and Haryana governments to file a status report on pollution of the Yamuna River.
A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra has listed the matter for further hearing on October 3.
“In that view, we deem it appropriate to first hear the issue relating to the pollution of the Yamuna River. In that regard, the status report shall separately be filed by the State of Haryana as also by the State of Delhi,” the court said on its Tuesday’s order copy.
The court order came after hearing the submission made by Amicus Curiae as also the other counsel representing the parties.
It was brought to the court’s notice that in these petitions and applications, the matter
relating to the pollution of the Yamuna River as also the coastal areas and the remedial measures are an issue.
It was pointed out that it would be appropriate these issues be divided and heard so that corrective measures may be implemented effectively.
The court further stated that, while the subject of coastal areas will be dealt up separately, with a date set on following occasions when these cases are mentioned, the progress report in that regard is also required to be filed by the relevant authorities.
The apex court had taken suo moto cognizance on the issue of “remediation of polluted rivers” observing that one of the major causes of water pollution was the discharge of non treated/ partially treated municipal waste and effluents of various states and cities.
The suo moto cognizance was taken on the issue of pollution of water resources and the deterioration in quality of fresh water as being an issue of greater importance affecting general public and living beings including marine life.
“Deterioration of quality of fresh water has a direct correlation with the quality of public health. It is an acknowledged fact that pollution of water supplies by sewage effluents has been and still is a major cause of variety of diseases and discomforts,” the Bench had stated in its earlier order.