Case Law On Prosecutions For Air, Water, And Soil Pollution
🌿 1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Ganga Water Pollution Case (1988–89)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1037; AIR 1989 SC 1299 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
The petition was filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta concerning industrial pollution in the Ganga River.
Numerous tanneries and industrial units were discharging untreated effluents directly into the river, violating water pollution standards.
Legal Issues:
Violation of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The need for closure or relocation of polluting industries to protect public health.
Judgment:
Supreme Court issued directives for closure of polluting tanneries in Kanpur until effluent treatment plants were installed.
Introduced the principle that polluters have the burden of proof to show their activity does not cause pollution.
Legal Principle:
Industries causing water pollution can be criminally and civilly liable; the court emphasized precautionary principle and polluter pays principle.
🌿 2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) – Tanneries Case
Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2715 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Industrial units in Tamil Nadu’s Vellore District were discharging untreated effluents into the Palar River, contaminating water and affecting local communities.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement of Water Act 1974 and Environment Protection Act 1986.
Liability of industrial units for environmental damage and compensation to affected residents.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized the Polluter Pays Principle, stating industries must bear the cost of pollution control and restoration.
The court ordered closure of polluting units that failed to implement pollution control measures.
Legal Principle:
Environmental law enforces strict liability for pollution; polluters must compensate for environmental damage and public health impacts.
🌿 3. Ganga Pollution – Kanpur Tanneries Case (1989)
Citation: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037
Facts:
In Kanpur, tanneries were dumping untreated effluents into the Ganga.
The effluents contained heavy metals and chemicals, creating water pollution and soil contamination in surrounding areas.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of criminal liability for violations of Water Act 1974 and Environment Protection Act 1986.
Whether failure to adopt pollution control measures constitutes criminal negligence.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ordered installation of effluent treatment plants and periodic monitoring by authorities.
Introduced absolute liability for hazardous activities, which means industries cannot claim exceptions like financial burden.
Legal Principle:
Industrialists engaging in environmentally hazardous activities must take all preventive measures; liability is absolute.
🌿 4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) – Kerala Pesticides Case
Citation: AIR 1996 SC 1446 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Hazardous chemical industries in Kerala and Karnataka were discharging toxic effluents containing pesticides and chemicals into rivers and soil.
Villages suffered contaminated drinking water and soil degradation.
Legal Issues:
Liability for environmental damage under Environment Protection Act 1986 and Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.
Compensation to victims and cleanup of contaminated soil and water.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ordered polluting industries to pay for restoration, medical expenses, and environmental remediation.
Established the polluter pays principle as part of statutory and common law.
Legal Principle:
Industries cannot avoid responsibility for soil, water, or air contamination; the cost of remediation must be borne by the polluter.
🌿 5. Kanpur Leather Industries – Air Pollution (1996–97)
Citation: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
Facts:
Tanneries in Kanpur were emitting toxic gases and fumes, causing air pollution and respiratory problems for nearby residents.
Air quality standards under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were violated.
Legal Issues:
Whether industries causing air pollution are criminally liable under Air Act 1981.
Scope of preventive orders and compensation for affected residents.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed closure of non-compliant tanneries.
Ordered installation of air pollution control devices and monitoring by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
Legal Principle:
Industrial air pollution constitutes a public nuisance; violators can be prosecuted, and preventive measures can be mandated by the court.
🌿 6. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) – Soil & Water Case
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 3751 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Large dams on Narmada River raised concerns over soil erosion, water contamination, and displacement of communities.
Legal Issues:
Application of precautionary principle and environmental impact assessment (EIA) before industrial or infrastructural projects.
Judgment:
Supreme Court allowed the project but stressed strict adherence to environmental safeguards, monitoring of soil and water quality, and compensation to displaced people.
Legal Principle:
Major developmental projects must include environmental protection measures; failure to do so may lead to litigation and suspension of project activities.
🔑 Key Takeaways
| Pollution Type | Case Example | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Water Pollution | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga); Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum | Polluter Pays Principle, strict liability, closure of non-compliant industries |
| Air Pollution | Kanpur Tanneries Air Pollution Case | Public nuisance, mandatory pollution control, criminal liability |
| Soil Pollution | Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India | Polluter pays, remediation costs, compensation for victims |
| Industrial/Infrastructure Projects | Narmada Bachao Andolan | Precautionary principle, EIA compliance, monitoring obligations |
✅ Summary:
Courts have consistently upheld polluter liability under Indian environmental law, especially for water, air, and soil pollution.
Key legal doctrines: Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Absolute Liability for hazardous industries, and Public Trust Doctrine.
Both criminal and civil remedies are available, including closure of industries, fines, and compensation for environmental damage.
RELATED Blog
comments