Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 647

Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In Re, (2011) 1 SCC 744 REFERRED
G. Sundarajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620 CONSIDERED
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402 RELIED
Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575 REFERRED
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 362 RELIED

1. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 9, 1996 we have heard learned counsel appearing for the tanneries which have been closed in terms of the above order. It has been brought to our notice that there are some tanneries which had set up individual pollution control devices, but despite that they were closed. It has further been brought to our notice that some of the tanneries are connected with CETP’s and have also set up their individual pollution control devices. Various other anomalies have been brought to our notice. Be that as it may, we have now to adopt a uniform procedure to bring these tanneries on rails. We make it clear that no tannery shall be permitted to re-open unless this Court is satisfies that the necessary pollution control devices either individually or cumulatively have been set up by these tanneries and for that purpose we have to depend on the advice tendered by Technical Authorities like the Pollution Control Boards or NEERI.

2. We direct the Central Pollution Control Board and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to jointly inspect the area on war-footing. The tanneries either directly or through learned counsel may approach the Pollution Control Boards either through Mr. Manjwani or through Mr. Mohan and indicate that their respective units have set up/constructed the necessary pollution Control devices. We direct the Pollution Control Boards concerned to immediately inspect the Units and file a report in this respect before May 6, 1996. These matters to come up on May 6, 1996 for further consideration.

3. We further direct that all those Units which are not in a position to construct the effluent treatment devices within this period may approach the Board as and when they complete the devices.

4. The North Arcot District and Chengai MGR District Association and other Associations of the Tanners shall bear the expenses of the inspection teams organized by the Boards.

This public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum against pollution which was being caused by the enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The matter was brought before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Kuldip Singh, J., Faizan Uddin, J., and K. Venkataswami, J.

Several tanneries operating in the State of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was finally discharged in River Palar, which was the main source of water supply to the residents of the area. According to the preliminary survey made by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre (Vellore) nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the tanneries belt, had become either partially or totally unfit for cultivation. This was the effect of about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome-based tanning processes. Nearly 35 litres of water was used per one kilogram of finished leather, resulting in dangerously enormous quantities of toxic effluents being let out in the open by the tanning industry. These effluents spoilt the physicochemical properties of the soil and contaminate ground water by percolation. It was revealed that 350 wells out of a total of 467 used for drinking and irrigation purposes had been polluted as a result of which women and children had to walk miles to get drinking water.

There were more than 900 such tanneries that were operating in the five districts of Tamil Nadu. Some of them had been polluting the environment for over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. The Supreme Court had in various orders indicated that these tanneries were liable to pay pollution fine and to compensate the affected persons as also pay the cost of restoring the damaged ecology.

Kuldip Singh, J., speaking on behalf of the Court held that the traditional concept of development and ecology being opposed to each other was no longer acceptable, and that the balance had to be found in “Sustainable Development”.18 The Court explained that the “Precautionary Principle”19 and the “Polluter Pays Principle”20 were the essential features of “Sustainable Development”. These principles were part of the law of the land by the operation of Article 21 and Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g)21 of the Constitution. They could also be derived from the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act), the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Environment Act).22 Also, since these principles were accepted as part of the customary international law there could be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the domestic law.23 Lastly, the source of the right against pollution stemmed from the inalienable common law right of a clean environment, which itself drew source from the common law right against “Nuisance”.24

In terms of the solutions, it was directed by the Court that an authority be constituted by the Central Government to find viable solutions to the problem.25 This authority was to be conferred with all the requisite powers. The authority was to perform three functions. Firstly, the authority, so constituted, would implement the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays” principle. The authority would, with the help of expert opinion, and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters, assess the loss to the environment in the affected areas, as well as identify the individuals who have suffered because of the pollution and thereby assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals. Secondly, the authority would have to determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment after laying down a just and fair procedure for completing the exercise.26 An industry, irrespective of whether it had set up the necessary pollution-control device, would be liable to pay for the past pollution generated by it if it resulted in the environmental degradation and suffering to the residents of the area. Fines that were collected were to be accredited to an “Environment Protection Fund”, which was to be utilised for compensating the affected persons and also for restoring the damaged environment. Finally, the authority so created could direct the permanent closure or relocation of the industry in case it evaded or refused to pay the compensation. Tanneries once closed were to be reopened only with the authority’s permission. It was also stated that the authority so created, was to be headed by a retired judge of the High Court and have members, preferably with expertise in the field of pollution control and environment protection. The authority, acting in consultation with expert bodies,27 was also to be empowered to frame schemes for reversing the damage caused to the environment by pollution. Noting the importance of the matter, the Supreme Court further requested the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, to constitute a Special Bench called the “Green Bench”, to deal with the case, and other environmental matters, as was being done by the “Green Benches”, already functioning in Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and some other High Courts.

In this decision we see that the two principles, namely, the “Polluter Pays” and the “Precautionary” principles were further ensconced into the fabric of environmental law in India. The Supreme Court acknowledged the urgency required to be shown in matters of environmental damage. The Court not only ordered the compensation of the affected parties, but also directed the creation of a fund in order to reverse the damage already caused by the polluting tanneries. The fund was intended to restore status quo, as regards the condition of the environment, which would have further deteriorated in the absence of intervention by the Supreme Court.

constitution of india - article 32 - environment (protection) act, 1986 - section 3(3) - writ petition seeking directing the respondents to provide wholesome clean drinking water to the people living in the villages being affected by the pollution in north arcot district of tamil nadu and for directions and to make loss of ecology (prevention and payment of compensation) authority as permanent body for the state of tamilnadu - if the loss of ecology authority goes and the pending cases are transferred to national green tribunal, the workload of the existing staff of the tribunal may increase manifold. if one more additional bench is going to be created, as indicated by the additional solicitor general, the tribunal may require additional staff - the rehabilitation of the staff working in.....(prayer: in w.p.no.13433 of 1996: petition initially filed under article 32 of the constitution of india, on the file of the supreme court of india, now transferred to the high court of madras as petition under article 226 of the constitution, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide wholesome clean drinking water to the people living in the villages being affected by the pollution in north arcot district of tamil nadu and for directions. prayer in w.p.m.p.no.11 of 2015: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution seeking to modify the order dated 03.12.2014 passed in w.p.no.39722 of 2005 and m.p.no.204-206 of 2014 and direct the transfer work of the loss of ecology (prevention and payments of compensation) authority, chennai along with....

RELATED Blog

Your Message

0 comments

Load more comments