Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

Tanneries in five districts of Tamil Nadu let untreated waste flow into fields and the Palar river. The Supreme Court watched the matter for about five years and then decided it on 28 August 1996. It held that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the law of the land.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in)

Parties

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum — petitioner; filed a public interest petition under Article 32 against tannery pollution in Tamil Nadu.

Union of India and others — respondents; the Central Government, the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the tanneries and other industries.

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (the Board) — statutory body; its Member Secretary filed an affidavit dated 9 January 1992. Mr. R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, appeared for the Board.

National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEERI) — expert body; the Court asked it to inspect and report on effluent treatment plants and standards.

Mr. M.C. Mehta — counsel for the petitioner; the Court thanked him and awarded him Rs. 50,000 for expenses.

Procedural History

This was a petition filed directly in the Supreme Court. The judgment records no lower-court decision. It records these orders of the Court.

1. 1 May 1995: The Court divided 553 industries into three statements.
   • Industries in Statements 1 and 2 had set up effluent treatment plants but had not met the standard or started working to the Board's satisfaction. They got three months to complete the setting up of the plants. Otherwise they faced pollution fine and closure.
   • The Board had to send individual notices within two weeks. It also had to publish a general notice in a local newspaper on three consecutive days.
   • The 57 tanneries in Statement III (including 12 that had filed writ petitions) were ordered closed with immediate effect.
   • The District Collector and the Senior Superintendent of Police had to enforce this and report within one week.
   • The 57 industries could come back to the Court once steps were taken. They could also propose relocation.
2. 28 July 1995: The Court suspended closure for seven industries for eight weeks. It asked Mr. Mohan to inspect their projects and report by 3 August 1995.
3. 8 September 1995: The Court dealt with about 299 industries whose projects were in progress under the Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation (TALCO).
   • It gave them time until 31 December 1995. Otherwise they would be closed and liable to pollution fine for the past.
   • It directed TALCO to take full interest in the projects.
   • It issued notice to the Council for Indian Finished Leather Manufacturers Export Association, which collects 5% on exports, to assist the Court.
   • For 163 tanneries in List II, the Board had found most had not started work. The Court ordered about 162 of them closed with immediate effect.
4. 20 October 1995: The Court directed NEERI to send experts. They were to examine common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) and whether new ones were feasible.
5. 9 December 1995 and 12 February 1996: NEERI filed its first and second reports.
6. 9 April 1996: The Court passed a detailed order on the NEERI reports.
   • Of 30 CETP sites in five districts, 7 were operating, 10 were under construction and 13 were proposed.
   • Three of the seven were commissioned in January 1996 and were still stabilising. None met the standards.
   • The Court directed compliance with NEERI recommendations within two months. The Board was to monitor. NEERI was to inspect the three stabilising CETPs and file a final report within two months.
   • All tanneries in the five districts not connected to the seven CETPs were closed with immediate effect until CETPs were built to the Board's satisfaction.
   • The Court closed 30 more industries in Statement I that had no CETP connection.
   • On 51 tanneries, the Court noted a dispute about total dissolved solids (TDS). It asked NEERI to examine this. It said it would not close any tannery only for discharging more than 2001 TDS, as the source prints the figure.
   • Seventeen units complied. The other 34 tanneries were closed at once.
   • The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police were to enforce the closures.
   • The Court issued show-cause notices on why heavy pollution fine should not be imposed.
   • It barred the State of Tamil Nadu and the Government of India from permitting further tanneries in the State.
   • It asked NEERI to check whether discharging treated effluent on land inside factory premises is environmentally permissible. It named M/s. Nandeem Tanning Company, Valayampet, Vaniyambadi, and asked NEERI to inspect it within ten days. The order was to be sent to the authorities within three days, and the matter was to come up after replies to the show-cause notices.
   • On distilleries, the Board was to issue notices to set up pollution control devices. Otherwise they would be closed.
7. 1 May 1996 and 11 June 1996: NEERI filed two more reports on CETPs. They showed that dug-well water in Ranipath, Thuthipath, Valayambattu, Vandyambadi and other places did not meet drinking limits.
8. 28 August 1996: The Court delivered the judgment.

Facts

1. The Forum filed a public interest petition under Article 32 against pollution caused by enormous discharge of untreated effluent from tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu.
2. The petitioner said the tanneries discharged effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. It finally reached the river Palar, the main source of water for residents.
3. The petitioner said the surface and sub-soil water of the Palar was polluted. Residents had no potable water.
4. A preliminary survey by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Center, Vellore, found that nearly 35,000 hectares in the Tanneries Belt were partly or fully unfit for cultivation.
5. The tanneries used about 170 types of chemicals in chrome tanning. These included sodium chloride, lime, sodium sulphate, chlorium sulphate, fat liquor, ammonia and sulphuric acid, besides dyes.
6. Nearly 35 litres of water was used to process one kilogram of finished leather. This produced very large quantities of toxic effluent.
7. The effluents spoiled the physico-chemical properties of the soil and contaminated ground water by percolation.
8. An independent survey by Peace Members, a non-governmental organisation, covered 13 villages of Dindigal and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Unions. It found that 350 of 467 wells used for drinking and irrigation were polluted. Women and children walked miles for drinking water.
9. The Legal Aid and Advice Board of Tamil Nadu asked two lawyers, M.R. Ramanan and P.S. Subramanium, to visit the area. Their report cited a Technical Report of 28 May 1983 on Solur village near Ambur.
   • That report noted 176 chemicals, including acids, in tannery effluents. It used 40 litres of water per kilogram of leather and about 200 tons of leather a day.
   • Production was likely to increase multifold in four to five years, as more tanneries sprang up around Ambur Town. The daily quantity of effluent was described as shockingly large.
   • Effluents went to nearby lands, then to the Goodar and Palar rivers. The lands, the rivulet and the river received toxic chemicals and acids.
   • Sub-soil water was polluted. This affected arable land, agricultural wells and drinking water wells. Ambur Town and nearby villages had no good drinking water.
   • Only some influential and rich people got drinking water from a far-off place through a few pipes.
   • In rain and floods, the chemicals spread quickly to other lands.
   • Crops did not come up, or yields were very low.
   • The report said the tanners had no regard for a healthy environment. Effluents were stored openly like ponds beside cultivable land.
   • It said the Ambur Municipality was a silent spectator that probably did not want to antagonise the highly influential and very rich tanners. It named Sections 226 to 231, 249 to 253 and 338 to 342 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920.
   • It said the powers under Section 63 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 had not been used against the tanneries.
   • It noted that the tanners had come to stay and that the industry earns foreign exchange. It asked whether the lives of lakhs of people should be put at risk for monetary considerations.
10. An affidavit dated 21 July 1992 from the Deputy Secretary, Environment and Forests Department, Tamil Nadu, listed 59 villages in the Thirupathur, Vellore and Ranipath Divisions. They had an acute shortage of drinking water. The Government was making alternative arrangements.
11. An affidavit dated 9 January 1992 from the Member Secretary of the Board said there were 584 tanneries in North Arcot Ambedkar District. Of these, 443 had applied for the Board's consent.
    • The Government gave time up to 31 July 1985 to set up Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs).
    • Only 33 tanneries had put up an ETP. The Board had set standards for effluent.
12. The Court noted from the affidavits that the tanneries had been persuaded for about 10 years to control pollution. They could build a common effluent treatment plant (CETP) for a cluster or set up individual devices. The Central Government agreed to give a substantial subsidy for CETPs.
13. Despite this, most tanneries in Tamil Nadu had taken no step to control the discharge.
14. The Court monitored the petition for almost five years. It later noted more than 900 tanneries in the five districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R.
15. The leather industry is a major foreign exchange earner. Tamil Nadu is the leading exporter of finished leather, at about 80% of the country's export.

Issues Raised

The judgment does not list issues in numbered form. The questions it decides are these.

1. Are the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, which flow from sustainable development, part of the law of India?
2. Does the leather industry's value as a foreign exchange earner and employer allow it to continue polluting?
3. What must the tanneries and the Central Government do about the pollution in the five districts?
4. Who will compensate the affected families and pay to restore the damaged environment?
5. Were the standards for total dissolved solids (TDS) fixed by the Board justified?
6. Who should monitor the matter after this judgment?

Arguments Contended

The reported judgment does not set out formal arguments for each side. It records the following statements and objections.

For the petitioner

• Untreated effluent was discharged into fields, waterways and the Palar river. Land, surface water and sub-soil water were polluted (Facts 2 to 8).
• Mr. M.C. Mehta relied on the Board's reports and on Government Order No. 213 dated 30 March 1989 (see Court's Reasoning, step 33).
• The petitioner relied on the reports of the two lawyers appointed by the Legal Aid and Advice Board and on the Peace Members survey.

For the respondents

• The State of Tamil Nadu and the Board said they had persuaded the industries for about 10 years. Only 33 of 584 tanneries in North Arcot Ambedkar District had put up an ETP (Facts 10 to 12).
• Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate, said in July 1995 that setting up effluent treatment plants was progressing satisfactorily. Several lakhs had been spent.
• Senior Advocates Mr. Ramaswamy, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Sanghi said in September 1995 that the projects were in progress. They said the projects would be complete within 3 months.
• Learned counsel for the tanneries objected that the TDS standard fixed by the Board was not justified.
• Mr. Mohan told the Court in April 1996 that the Board had issued notices to all tanneries to set up pollution control devices.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is a single opinion of the Court delivered by Kuldip Singh, J. It has no numbered paragraphs. The steps below follow its order.

Kuldip Singh, J. (for the Court)

1. Noted: the Court had monitored the petition for almost five years. NEERI, the Board and the Central Pollution Control Board visited the industries several times and gave all possible help.
2. Noted: the NEERI reports showed that even the seven operating CETPs were not functioning to its satisfaction. NEERI made several recommendations for them.
3. Noted: of 30 CETP sites, 10 were under construction and 13 were proposed. Many tanneries were unlikely to connect to any CETP. They had to set up pollution control devices on their own.
4. Held: despite repeated extensions over five years, and earlier extensions by the Board, the tanneries had failed miserably to control the pollution they generated.
5. Noted: the leather industry earns foreign exchange. Tamil Nadu is the leading exporter of finished leather, at about 80% of the country's export. The industry gives employment.
6. Held: the industry has "no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose as a health hazard". It cannot expand or even continue present production unless it tackles the pollution itself.
7. Held: the traditional idea that development and ecology oppose each other is no longer acceptable. sustainable development is the answer.
8. Noted: the history of sustainable development in the international sphere.
   • It first became known in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972.
   • In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development gave it a definite shape in its report. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms. G.H. Brundtland. The report is popularly known as the Brundtland Report.
   • In 1991 the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a document called Caring for the Earth, a strategy for sustainable living.
   • The Earth Summit at Rio in June 1992 was the largest gathering of world leaders in history. Two conventions were signed there, on biological diversity and on climate change, by 153 nations.
   • The delegates also approved three non-binding documents by consensus: a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and development, and Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a programme of action for areas like poverty, population and pollution.
   • Between Stockholm and Rio, sustainable development came to be accepted as a viable way to remove poverty and improve human life within the carrying capacity of the supporting eco-systems.
9. Noted: the Brundtland Report defines it as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs".
10. Held: the Court had no hesitation in holding that sustainable development, as a balancing concept between ecology and development, is part of Customary International Law (rules of international law accepted as law by practice). Its salient features are yet to be finalised by International Law Jurists.
11. Noted: the salient principles of sustainable development, taken from the Brundtland Report and other international documents, are:
    • Inter-Generational Equity;
    • use and conservation of natural resources;
    • environmental protection;
    • the precautionary principle;
    • the polluter pays principle;
    • the obligation to assist and cooperate;
    • eradication of poverty;
    • financial assistance to developing countries.
12. Held: the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are essential features of sustainable development.
13. Noted: in municipal law (the domestic law of a country), the precautionary principle means three things.
    • Environment measures by the State Government and statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
    • Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used to postpone measures to prevent degradation.
    • The onus of proof (the burden of proving a point) "is on the actor or the developer/industrial to show that his action is environmentally benign".
14. Noted: this Court held the polluter pays principle to be sound in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (J.T. 1996 (2) 196).
    • That Court said any principle should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions of this country.
    • It ruled that if an activity is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying it on must make good the loss to others. This applies whether or not he took reasonable care. The rule rests on the nature of the activity.
    • Polluting industries are therefore "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area", to the soil and to the underground water. They must take all steps to remove sludge and other pollutants.
15. Held: as this Court has interpreted the polluter pays principle, absolute liability for harm to the environment covers two things. It covers compensation to victims of pollution. It also covers the cost of restoring the damaged environment.
16. Held: remediation of the damaged environment is part of sustainable development. The polluter must pay the individual sufferers and the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
17. Held: the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle "have been accepted as part of the law of the land".
18. Noted: the constitutional provisions.
    • Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
    • Article 47 makes raising the level of nutrition, the standard of living and public health a primary duty of the State. It also asks the State to work towards prohibiting intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health, except for medicinal purposes.
    • Article 48A asks the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wild life.
    • Article 51A(g) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
19. Noted: there are many post-independence laws. The most relevant are the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    • The Water Act provides for the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards. The Boards work under the control of the Governments.
    • It bars the use of streams and wells for disposing of polluting matter. It restricts outlets and the discharge of effluents without the Board's consent. It provides prosecution and penalties, including imprisonment.
    • Under the Air Act, the same Boards perform functions to improve air quality and to prevent, control and abate air pollution.
    • The Court said it would deal with the Environment Act later in the judgment.
20. Held: in view of these constitutional and statutory provisions, the Court had no hesitation in holding that the two principles are part of the environmental law of the country.
21. Held: even otherwise, once the principles are accepted as part of Customary International Law, they can be accepted as part of domestic law.
    • Noted: it is almost an accepted proposition that a rule of Customary International Law that is not contrary to municipal law is deemed incorporated in domestic law. Courts follow it.
    • The Court cited H.R. Khanna, J.'s opinion in Addl. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, Jolly George Varghese's case and Gramophone Company's case in support.
22. Noted: the constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person's right to fresh air, clean water and a pollution-free environment. Held: the source of the right is the inalienable common law right to a clean environment.
23. Noted: the Court quoted Blackstone's Commentaries (Vol. III, chapter on Of Nuisance). The passage summarised:
    • Keeping noisome animals or letting filth pile up so near a neighbour's house that the stench makes the air unwholesome is an injurious nuisance.
    • Setting up an offensive trade, such as a tanner's, is also an actionable nuisance. These trades are lawful and necessary but should be carried on in remote places. The rule is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
    • Stopping or diverting water, poisoning a water-course, polluting a pond or obstructing a drain are also nuisances.
24. Held: the legal system is founded on British common law. The right to a pollution-free environment is therefore part of the basic jurisprudence of the land.
25. Noted: the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Environment Act records the following.
    • Environmental quality had declined through pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity, harmful chemicals in the atmosphere and food chains, and growing risks of accidents.
    • The world community resolved to protect the environment at the Stockholm Conference of June 1972. India took part.
    • Existing laws covered only specific types of pollution or hazardous substances. Some major hazards were not covered. There were gaps.
    • Control of slow build-up of hazardous substances was weak. There were many regulatory agencies.
    • The Act was needed to coordinate the agencies, create authorities with adequate powers, regulate discharge of pollutants and handle hazardous substances. It was also to give a speedy response to accidents and to punish those who endanger the environment.
26. Noted: the Court set out the following provisions of the Environment Act, in plain words.
    • Section 3(1): the Central Government may take all measures it thinks necessary to protect and improve environmental quality and to prevent, control and abate pollution.
    • Section 3(2): such measures may include coordination of action, a nation-wide programme, environmental quality standards, standards for discharge of pollutants, restriction of areas for industries, safeguards against accidents and for hazardous substances, and examination of processes and substances. They may also include research, inspection with directions, laboratories, information, manuals and other matters.
    • Section 3(3): the Central Government may, by published order, constitute an authority or authorities. They exercise its powers, including the power to issue directions under Section 5, and take the measures named in the order.
    • Section 4: the Central Government may appoint officers and give them powers. They work under its control.
    • Section 5: the Central Government may issue written directions to any person, officer or authority, who must comply. This includes closure, prohibition or regulation of an industry, and stopping or regulating electricity, water or other services.
    • Section 7: no person carrying on an industry may discharge or emit pollutants above the prescribed standards.
    • Section 8: no person may handle hazardous substances except by the prescribed procedure and safeguards.
27. Noted: the Court set out these rules of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
    • Rule 3(1): standards for emission or discharge are those in Schedules I to IV.
    • Rule 3(2): the Central Board or a State Board may set more stringent standards for a specific industry, depending on the recipient system. It must record reasons in writing.
    • Rule 5(1): the Central Government may consider listed factors in prohibiting or restricting the location of industries. They include environmental quality standards, allowable limits, likely discharge, topography and climate, biological diversity, compatible land use, net adverse impact, closeness to protected monuments, sanctuaries, National Parks and treaty-protected places, closeness to human settlements, and any other relevant factor.
28. Held: the Environment Act has useful provisions to control pollution. Its main purpose is to create an authority under Section 3(3) with adequate powers.
29. Noted: the Court regretted that the Central Government had constituted no such authority to date. The work the authority should do was being done by this Court and other courts. It was high time the Central Government realised its responsibility and statutory duty.
30. Held: if conditions in the five districts continue, all rivers and canals will be polluted, underground waters contaminated and agricultural land turned barren. Residents will face serious diseases. So the Court must direct the Central Government to act at once under the Environment Act.
31. Noted: there are more than 900 tanneries in the five districts. Some may now have pollution control measures. They have polluted for over a decade, and in some cases longer. The Court had already said in various orders that they are liable to pay pollution fine.
32. Held: the polluters must compensate the affected persons and pay the cost of restoring the damaged ecology.
33. Noted: Mr. M.C. Mehta drew attention to Government Order (Notification) G.O.Ms. No. 213 dated 30 March 1989.
    • It bans highly polluting industries within one kilometre of the embankments of the water sources listed in its Annexure II. It records the Board Chairman's suggestion to limit the order to reservoirs, rivers and public drinking water sources, and the wish to exclude rain-water ponds, drains and sewerage.
    • For other water sources, the Board must examine the case and get Government approval.
    • Annexure I lists distilleries, tanneries, fertilizer, steel plants and foundries as highly polluting industries.
34. Held: the Court doubted that the Tamil Nadu Government was enforcing the order. It should be strictly enforced. No industry in Annexure I may be set up in the prohibited area.
35. Noted: counsel for the tanneries objected that the TDS standard fixed by the Board was not justified. On 9 April 1996 the Court asked NEERI to examine this.
36. Noted: NEERI's report of 11 June 1996 justified the Board's standards. It said:
    • TDS in water has physiological, industrial and economic significance. Acceptance falls as mineralisation rises.
    • High TDS, including chlorides and sulphates, is objectionable because of physiological effects and mineral taste. It has a laxative effect.
    • Soap and detergent use rises with water hardness.
    • High sulphates and chlorides cause costly corrosion in wastewater systems. High TDS also leaves scale deposits and raises fuel use in boilers.
    • The Ministry of Environment and Forests has not laid down categorical standards for TDS, sulphates and chlorides in inland surface water discharge. The decision rests with State Boards, based on local site conditions.
    • The Board's standards can be met cost-effectively by proper in-plant control in tanning and by well-designed and well-run ETPs and CETPs.
    • Tables 3 and 5 show groundwater quality near tanneries during peak summer (3 to 5 June 1996). Table 8 shows Board data at individual ETPs, with TDS, sulphates and chlorides below the standards for inland surface water discharge.
    • Ambient water quality must be maintained through the Board's standards.
    • The report cited Bruvold, DeBoer and Larsen, and Patterson and Banker.
37. Held: the Board has power under the Environment Act and the Rules to lay down standards. Rule 3(2) lets it set more stringent ones. NEERI having justified the Board's standards, the tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu must maintain them.

Authorities

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. 1996 (2) 196: relied on; held the polluter pays principle a sound principle and stated the rule of liability for hazardous activity (step 14).
• Addl. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 (opinion of H.R. Khanna, J.): cited to show that customary international law not contrary to municipal law is part of domestic law (step 21).
• Jolly George Varghese's case, AIR 1980 SC 470: cited for the same point (step 21).
• Gramophone Company's case, AIR 1984 SC 667: cited for the same point (step 21).
• Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. III, fourth edition, 1876, chapter XIII, Of Nuisance: quoted to show the common law right to a clean environment (step 23).
• Bruvold, DeBoer and Larsen, and Patterson and Banker: named only inside the NEERI report of 11 June 1996 that the Court quoted (step 36).
• Also cited in footnotes: none.

Provisions

• Articles 21, 32, 47, 48A, 51A(g) and 226 of the Constitution (steps 18 and Judgement).
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, including Section 63 (mentioned in the lawyers' report, Facts 9) and the Water Act's Board and consent scheme (step 19).
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (step 19).
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 (step 26).
• Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Rules 3(1), 3(2) and 5(1) (step 27).
• Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, Sections 226 to 231, 249 to 253 and 338 to 342 (Facts 9).
• Contempt of Courts Act (Judgement, direction 6).
• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act (named in Rule 5(1), step 27).

Judgement

The Court gave these directions.

1. The Central Government must constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It must give the authority all powers needed to deal with the tanneries and other polluting industries in Tamil Nadu.
   • A retired High Court judge must head it. The Central Government may appoint other members, preferably experts in pollution control and environment protection.
   • The authority must have the power to issue directions under Section 5. It must also have power to take measures on matters in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of Section 3(2).
   • The Central Government must constitute it before 30 September 1996.
2. The authority must apply the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
   • With expert help, and after giving the polluters a chance to be heard, it must assess the loss to the ecology and environment in the affected areas.
   • It must identify the individuals and families who suffered and assess their compensation.
   • It must decide the compensation to be recovered from polluters as the cost of reversing the damaged environment.
   • It must lay down a just and fair procedure.
3. The authority must compute compensation under two heads: reversing the ecology, and payment to individuals. It must send a statement to the Collectors or District Magistrates. The statement must show the total amount, the polluters, the amount from each, and the persons to be paid and the amount for each. The Collector or District Magistrate must recover the amount from the polluters, if necessary as arrears of land revenue. He must pay the compensation to the affected persons and families.
4. The authority must direct the closure of an industry if its owner evades or refuses to pay the compensation. This is in addition to recovery as arrears of land revenue.
5. An industry that has now set up pollution control devices is still liable to pay for the past pollution that caused environmental degradation and suffering to residents.
6. A pollution fine of Rs. 10,000 is imposed on each tannery in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R.
   • It must be paid before 31 October 1996 in the office of the Collector or District Magistrate.
   • The Collectors or District Magistrates must recover it from the tanneries, as arrears of land revenue.
   • The money goes with the compensation recovered from polluters into a separate head called the Environment protection Fund. It is to compensate the affected persons and restore the damaged environment.
   • Tanneries that fail to deposit the fine by 31 October 1996 must be closed at once and are also liable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
7. The authority must frame schemes to reverse the damage to the ecology and environment in Tamil Nadu, in consultation with expert bodies like NEERI, the Central Board and the Board.
   • The State Government must carry out the schemes under the supervision of the Central Government.
   • The cost comes from the Environment protection fund and from other sources provided by the State and Central Governments.
8. The closure orders for all tanneries in the five districts are suspended.
   • All these tanneries must set up CETPs or individual pollution control devices on or before 30 November 1996. Those connected with CETPs must also install the primary devices in the tanneries.
   • All must obtain the Board's consent to function and operate with effect from 15 December 1996.
   • A tannery refused consent, or that fails to get consent by 15 December 1996, must be closed at once.
9. The Superintendent of Police and the Collector, District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner must close, with immediate effect, every tannery that fails to get the Board's consent by that date.
   • Such a tannery cannot reopen unless the authority permits.
   • The authority may close it permanently or direct its relocation.
10. Government Order No. 213 dated 30 March 1989 must be enforced at once.
    • No new industry listed in Annexure I may be set up in the prohibited area.
    • The authority must review all industries already operating in the prohibited area. It may direct the relocation of any of them.
11. The TDS standards laid down by the Board and approved by NEERI are operative. All tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu must comply. The quality of ambient waters must be maintained through the Board's standards.

Further orders.

• The Court said it need not monitor the matters any further. The Madras High Court is better placed to do so.
• It requested the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to constitute a special Bench, a Green bench, for this case and other environmental matters. Green Benches already work in Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and some other High Courts.
• The Bench may pass any appropriate order, keeping in view these directions.
• The Registry must send the records to the Registry of the Madras High Court. The High Court must treat the matter as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and deal with it in accordance with law and these directions.
• The parties have liberty to approach the High Court when necessary.
• Costs: the Court thanked Mr. M.C. Mehta for assisting it to its utmost satisfaction. It directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs. 50,000 for his legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses.

Legal Principle / Ratio

The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are essential features of sustainable development. They are part of the environmental law of India, through Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g), the environmental statutes and customary international law.

Key holding: "The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land."

• Obiter: the Court said sustainable development is part of Customary International Law, and a right to a pollution-free environment also comes from the common law right to a clean environment (steps 10 and 22).

Subsequent Treatment

Later judgments that name this case, taken from their own text.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (I.A. Nos. 1287, 1570-1571, 1624-1625, 1978, 2395, 2795-2796 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995). Supreme Court of India, Radhakrishnan and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ., 13 February 2012. Reported citation: not stated in the file. The case was about whether sandalwood and Red Sanders should be listed in Schedule VI of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

• Noted: senior counsel argued that the precautionary and polluter pays principles affirmed in this case rest on an anthropocentric (human-centred) idea. They depend on harm to humans (Radhakrishnan, J., para 8).
• Noted: the Court said the same about the two principles. It held that such principles have no role in deciding the fate of an endangered species irrespective of its instrumental value (para 19).
• Held: treaties and conventions not contrary to municipal law are deemed part of domestic law. The Court cited this case for that point, with Jolly George Varghese's case and Gramophone Company's case. Following the ecocentric principle, it directed the Central Government to include Red Sanders in Schedule VI within six months (para 26).

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 and connected matters). Nine-Judge Bench, Supreme Court of India, 24 August 2017.

• Noted: in Nariman, J.'s opinion, a footnote to para 66 lists rights that came out of Article 21 by constitutional interpretation. It lists the right to a clean environment and cites this case at its paras 13, 16 and 17 (para 66, footnote).

Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016). Constitution Bench, Supreme Court of India, S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., 3 January 2023.

• Noted: Ramasubramanian, J. said the Court has awarded damages against non-State actors under environmental law for violating Article 21. He cited M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, where a private motel owner was made to pay for restoring the ecology. That case invoked the polluter pays and precautionary principles set out in this case (Ramasubramanian, J., para 76).

Other later cases (not summarized)

• Pragnesh Shah v. Dr Arun Kumar Sharma, Civil Appeal Nos. 7724-7725 of 2021, Supreme Court of India, decided 12 January 2022. Its text names this case.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The Court gave Customary International Law and the constitutional and statutory provisions as independent bases. It did not say which base is the main one.
• The judgment says the salient features of sustainable development are yet to be finalised by International Law Jurists. It leaves the exact content of the concept open.
• The Court itself noted that the Central Government had not, to date, constituted the Section 3(3) authority. It then ordered the authority to be set up, and passed the wider monitoring to the Madras High Court.

Significance

• The Court used the two principles to fix who pays and for what. The polluter pays victims and the cost of restoring the ecology.
• It dealt with the industry's value for foreign exchange and employment: an industry has no right to destroy the ecology.
• It created a Section 3(3) authority, a pollution fine, an Environment protection Fund and a Green Bench for continued monitoring.

Exam-Important Points

• Bench: Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin and K. Venkataswami, JJ.; judgment by Kuldip Singh, J.; decided 28 August 1996.
• Holding: the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the law of the land.
• Precautionary principle (three limbs): anticipate and prevent; lack of scientific certainty is no reason to delay; the onus of proof is on the developer or industry.
• Polluter pays: absolute liability covers both compensation to victims and the cost of restoring the ecology.
• Sources: Articles 21, 47, 48A, 51A(g); the Water, Air and Environment Acts; Customary International Law; the common law right to a clean environment.
• Directions: Section 3(3) authority (headed by a retired High Court judge) before 30 September 1996; Rs. 10,000 fine by 31 October 1996; treatment plants by 30 November 1996; Board consent from 15 December 1996.
• Trap: the numbered items 1 to 11 are directions, not paragraphs. Cite the opinion of Kuldip Singh, J.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited.