Prosecution Of Environmental Violations By Textile And Industrial Factories
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case, 1985-1996)
Background:
The textile and other industrial factories in the vicinity of Agra were causing air pollution, particularly emissions from coal-fired boilers and textile dyeing units.
These emissions were causing damage to the Taj Mahal, leading to discoloration and erosion of marble.
Issues:
Whether industrial emissions violated environmental laws and public interest.
Whether the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) was effectively enforcing the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Liability of industries for environmental degradation.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court recognized pollution as a public hazard and industries as accountable under the principle of absolute liability.
Industries were directed to:
Switch to cleaner fuels (like natural gas) instead of coal.
Install effluent treatment plants for textile and chemical effluents.
Follow strict emission norms set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
Significance:
Established that industries causing environmental harm can be prosecuted even for historical pollution.
Introduced the “Polluter Pays Principle” in India.
Set a precedent for actions against textile and industrial units for air pollution.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case – 1988)
Background:
Several industrial factories, including textile and chemical units along the banks of the Ganga, were discharging untreated effluents into the river.
Effluents included dyes, chemicals, and heavy metals causing water pollution and harming aquatic life.
Issues:
Whether industries violating Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 could be prosecuted.
Responsibility of the State Pollution Control Boards in preventing industrial discharge.
Court’s Findings:
Industries along the Ganga were ordered to:
Install effluent treatment plants (ETPs).
Stop discharging untreated water.
Pay environmental compensation for damages.
Court emphasized strict compliance with water quality standards.
Significance:
Reinforced that textile and chemical factories cannot bypass environmental standards.
Led to the concept of environmental compensation for damage caused by industrial effluents.
Created judicial monitoring mechanisms for compliance.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri and Kham River Pollution Case, 1996)
Background:
Several textile and chemical dyeing units in Rajasthan discharged untreated effluents into rivers.
Resulted in contamination of groundwater and soil, making agricultural land unfit for cultivation.
Issues:
Liability of industries under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Water Act.
Whether absolute liability applies to hazardous industrial operations.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court held that:
Hazardous industries are absolutely liable for environmental damage.
Polluter Pays Principle applies — industries must bear the cost of restoration.
Ordered industries to compensate farmers and restore land.
Significance:
Clarified that absolute liability extends to textile, chemical, and industrial units causing environmental harm.
Reinforced that prosecution and compensation are mandatory for environmental violations.
4. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Background:
Tanneries and textile factories in Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents into the Palar River.
Polluted water affected drinking water, agriculture, and public health.
Issues:
Whether industrial units violating effluent norms could be prosecuted.
Role of CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards in enforcement.
Court’s Findings:
Supreme Court reiterated the Polluter Pays Principle.
Ordered industries to:
Install effluent treatment facilities.
Pay compensation to affected communities.
Non-compliance was to be treated as criminal offense under the Water Act and Environment Protection Act.
Significance:
First case to quantify environmental compensation for communities affected by industrial pollution.
Strengthened judicial oversight over industrial pollution control.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Background:
A chemical factory producing textiles and chemical dyes leaked Oleum gas, a toxic compound.
The leak caused serious health hazards to nearby residents.
Issues:
Responsibility of industries for industrial accidents causing environmental and health damage.
Whether criminal prosecution could apply for negligence in hazardous industries.
Court’s Findings:
Industries engaged in hazardous operations are strictly liable.
Courts imposed criminal and civil liability on the company for damages.
Introduced the principle that environmental violations can attract both civil and criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Expanded scope of prosecution beyond routine violations to industrial accidents.
Reinforced absolute liability of factories for public safety and environmental compliance.
6. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006)
Background:
Industrial units, including oil refineries and textile factories, discharged effluents into rivers near Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Led to public interest litigation (PIL) against industries for pollution of water and land.
Issues:
Enforcement of CPCB guidelines against large industrial units.
Accountability of industries under Environment Protection Act, Water Act, and Air Act.
Court’s Findings:
Courts ordered:
Installation of modern effluent treatment systems.
Payment of environmental damages.
Closure of non-compliant factories.
Significance:
Demonstrated that large industrial factories, not just small-scale units, can be prosecuted for environmental violations.
Emphasized compliance over economic considerations.
7. Sterlite Industries Case (Copper Smelting Unit in Tamil Nadu, 2013-2018)
Background:
Sterlite copper smelting unit, associated with industrial and textile ancillary production, discharged toxic effluents and airborne pollutants, affecting public health in Thoothukudi.
Locals filed PILs citing air and water pollution.
Issues:
Liability of industrial unit under Air Act, Water Act, and Environment Protection Act.
Role of government in monitoring compliance and imposing penalties.
Court’s Findings:
The Madras High Court and the Supreme Court emphasized:
Strict monitoring by SPCB and CPCB.
Closure of factories violating environmental norms.
Criminal prosecution for endangering public health.
Sterlite unit faced both civil and criminal liability, including fines and operational suspension.
Significance:
Modern example of industrial prosecution for environmental and public health violations.
Shows courts are willing to take proactive steps against industrial pollution.
Key Legal Principles from Cases:
Polluter Pays Principle: The industry causing pollution bears the cost of remediation.
Absolute Liability: Hazardous industries cannot escape liability, even in absence of negligence.
Criminal and Civil Liability: Environmental violations attract penal consequences, including fines, imprisonment, and closure.
Judicial Monitoring: Courts often oversee compliance and enforcement of environmental laws.
Industrial Compliance: Factories must install Effluent Treatment Plants, Air Pollution Controls, and follow CPCB/SPCB norms.
These cases collectively show that textile and industrial factories in India face both civil and criminal prosecution if they violate environmental norms, whether for air, water, or land pollution. Courts have consistently emphasized prevention, compensation, and strict liability over mere economic arguments of industrial growth.
RELATED Blog
comments