Prosecution Of Environmental Violations By Factories, Textile Mills, And Chemical Industries
⚖️ 1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1115
Facts:
Several tanneries in Kanpur were discharging untreated effluents into the Ganga River, severely polluting the water. M.C. Mehta filed a petition under Article 32, seeking action against the tanneries.
Legal Issues:
Can factories be prosecuted for polluting rivers under environmental laws?
What standards must industries follow to prevent water pollution?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ordered closure of polluting tanneries until they installed effluent treatment plants.
Emphasized “polluter pays principle”: the cost of remedying environmental damage must be borne by the polluting enterprise.
Directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to monitor compliance.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing active judicial intervention in environmental enforcement.
Reinforced that industries cannot prioritize profits over ecological safety.
⚖️ 2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Hazardous Chemicals & Oleum Gas Leak, 1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086
Facts:
Factories storing hazardous chemicals, including oleum, posed a serious risk to nearby populations.
Legal Issues:
Liability for environmental and human health risks due to hazardous chemicals.
Standard of care required in storage and handling of toxic substances.
Judgment:
Introduced absolute liability doctrine for enterprises engaged in hazardous activities.
Even without negligence, factories are liable for environmental and health damage.
Emphasized that regulatory authorities must ensure compliance.
Significance:
Basis for prosecution of chemical industries for environmental violations.
Companies cannot claim defense of “no intent” or “act of God” for chemical hazards.
⚖️ 3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647
Facts:
The leather tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharged untreated effluents into agricultural lands and rivers, damaging ecology and human health.
Legal Issues:
Can courts enforce environmental standards through public interest litigation?
Can industries be held financially liable for pollution?
Judgment:
Applied polluter pays principle and sustainable development principle.
Industries were ordered to pay compensation for environmental damage.
Directed closure or regulation of non-compliant tanneries.
Significance:
Strong precedent for environmental litigation against textile and chemical industries.
Introduced compensation as a punitive and remedial measure for environmental harm.
⚖️ 4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Citation: (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts:
Chemical industries in Gujarat dumped hazardous waste in open land, contaminating soil and water. Local villagers suffered serious health effects.
Legal Issues:
Can factories be prosecuted for dumping toxic waste under Environmental Protection Act, 1986?
Scope of compensation for victims of industrial pollution.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held industries liable for restoring polluted environment.
Ordered payment of damages to victims and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Reinforced strict liability for industrial pollution.
Significance:
Strong precedent for prosecution and compensation in cases of soil and water contamination.
Recognized right to a clean environment as part of fundamental rights.
⚖️ 5. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest & Industrial Pollution, 1996 onward)
Citation: Ongoing PILs (AIR 1997 SC 1228)
Facts:
Illegal logging and industrial effluents threatened forests in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Factories near forests discharged untreated waste, impacting biodiversity.
Legal Issues:
Can industrial projects in ecologically sensitive areas be restrained?
Liability of industries for forest and biodiversity damage.
Judgment:
Supreme Court banned construction and operation of industries in ecologically sensitive areas without environmental clearance.
Introduced concept of precautionary principle in industrial regulation.
Significance:
Industries operating near forests and rivers must obtain environmental clearances.
Prosecution possible under Environment Protection Act, 1986, if clearance or pollution norms are violated.
⚖️ 6. Vapi Industries Association v. Union of India (1995)
Facts:
Textile and chemical units in Gujarat’s industrial town of Vapi were discharging untreated effluents into nearby rivers, affecting local communities.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Liability of industrial associations for members’ environmental violations.
Judgment:
Industries were ordered to set up common effluent treatment plants (CETPs).
Supreme Court emphasized collective responsibility of industrial associations.
Failure to comply could lead to closure and criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Recognized industrial associations’ role in environmental compliance.
Strengthened regulatory enforcement against textile mills and chemical plants.
⚖️ 7. Dehradun Textile Mills Case (Hypothetical based on Indian Textile Pollution Cases)
Facts:
Textile mills discharged untreated dyes into rivers, turning water unfit for drinking and agriculture. Villagers complained of skin diseases and crop damage.
Legal Issues:
Liability under Water Act, Air Act, and Environment Protection Act.
Enforcement through criminal prosecution and compensation.
Judgment (Typical Court Action):
Courts direct immediate closure until compliance with effluent treatment.
Criminal prosecution under Sections 15 and 19 of Water Act for deliberate pollution.
Compensation awarded to affected villagers.
Significance:
Textile and dye industries are strictly liable for water pollution.
Reinforces judicial activism in environmental enforcement.
✅ Summary of Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Leading Case | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute liability for hazardous chemicals | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | Industries cannot claim exceptions; fully liable for harm. |
| Polluter Pays Principle | Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum | Industries must pay for environmental damage caused. |
| Precautionary Principle | Godavarman Case | Industrial projects must prevent potential ecological harm. |
| Criminal prosecution for non-compliance | Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action | Violators of environmental norms face fines, imprisonment, or closure. |
| Collective responsibility of industrial associations | Vapi Industries Association | Associations must ensure members comply with environmental laws. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments