| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Citation | AIR 1996 SC 2715; (1996) 5 SCC 647 |
| Decided | 28 August 1996 |
| Bench | Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin and K. Venkataswami, JJ. (judgment by Kuldip Singh, J.) |
The Supreme Court told the authorities to apply the "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays" principle.
Facts
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum filed a public interest petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It complained about untreated waste from tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu. The waste went into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open land. It finally reached the river Palar, the main source of water for people in the area.
The petition said the surface and sub-soil water of the Palar was polluted, so residents had no drinkable water. A preliminary survey by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore, found that nearly 35,000 hectares of farmland in the tannery belt had become partly or wholly unfit for cultivation. An independent survey by a non-governmental organisation covered 13 villages. It found that 350 of 467 wells used for drinking and irrigation were polluted. Women and children had to walk miles for drinking water.
A report to the Legal Aid and Advice Board of Tamil Nadu described the scale of the problem. It asked whether the lives of lakhs of people should be risked for money. It also said the Ambur Municipality seemed a silent spectator, and that powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 had not been used against the tanneries.
The State's own affidavit listed 59 villages with an acute drinking water shortage, where the Government was making alternative arrangements. The Court noted that for about ten years the industries had been persuaded to control pollution. They could build common effluent treatment plants, with a substantial subsidy from the Central Government, or set up individual devices. Most had still done nothing. The Court had also passed a detailed order on 1 May 1995 giving tanneries three months to set up treatment plants.
Issues
- How should the Court deal with industries that kept polluting water and land despite years of warnings and chances to comply?
- Should polluters pay for the damage to the environment and to the people harmed, even if they have since installed pollution control devices?
- What machinery is needed to assess the damage, recover the money and repair the environment?
Held
- The "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays" principle were to be implemented.
- An authority was to assess the loss to the ecology and environment, with expert help and after hearing the polluters. It was also to identify the individuals and families who suffered and assess their compensation, using a just and fair procedure.
- Compensation was to be worked out under two heads: reversing the ecological damage, and payment to affected individuals. District Collectors were to recover the sums, if necessary as arrears of land revenue, and pay the affected people. A polluter who evaded or refused to pay faced closure of the industry.
- An industry that had since installed pollution control devices still had to pay for past pollution.
- Every tannery in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R. was fined Rs. 10,000, payable before 31 October 1996. The fines, together with the compensation recovered, were to go into an "Environment Protection Fund". The fund would pay affected persons and restore the damaged environment.
- The tanneries had to set up common effluent treatment plants or individual devices by 30 November 1996 and obtain the Board's consent by 15 December 1996. Any that failed were to be closed immediately, and the authority could close them permanently or order their relocation.
- Government Order No. 213 of 30 March 1989 was to be enforced at once. No new listed industry could be set up in the prohibited area, and the authority could order the relocation of existing ones. The Board's standards for total dissolved solids, approved by NEERI, applied to all tanneries and industries in Tamil Nadu.
- The Court asked the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to set up a special "Green Bench". The case was sent to the High Court to be treated as a petition under Article 226.
The Court also thanked Mr. M.C. Mehta for assisting it and directed Tamil Nadu to pay him Rs. 50,000 for fees and expenses.
Why it matters
- It shows the Court dealing with pollution through concrete orders, not general statements. Polluters faced fines, compensation, closure and relocation.
- The ruling treats harm to both people and the environment as something polluters must pay for. That includes past pollution, even after a factory installs the right equipment.
- The Court noted that such benches already worked in Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and some other High Courts.
- The Indian Kanoon page lists 390 later judgments citing it.
Exam one-liner
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996): the Supreme Court directed implementation of the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, with polluters liable for compensation and for restoring the environment, including for past pollution.
Frequently asked questions
Who brought this case and why did it go straight to the Supreme Court?
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum brought it as a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It complained of pollution from tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu.
Who pays for the clean-up and for the harmed families?
The polluters do. Compensation was to be assessed for reversing the ecological damage and for affected individuals and families. It was to be recovered from the polluters, together with the fines, into an Environment Protection Fund.