Supreme Court
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
Union of India and others
Numerous tanneries and industries were situated in the state of Tamil Nadu near the Palar River, which served as the primary water source for nearby residents. The tanneries were accused of releasing untreated waste into various places, such as agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and directly into the river. A preliminary survey showed that almost 35,000 hectares of farmland had become unusable due to pollution. In addition, an independent study found contamination in 350 out of 467 wells used for drinking and irrigation.
Over the previous decade, the Indian government had offered subsidies and urged the tanneries to establish pollution control measures. However, many tanneries failed to comply. Since the petition was first filed in 1991, the Supreme Court of India had closely monitored the situation along the Palar River. In that time, the Court issued multiple directives, setting deadlines for installing pollution control mechanisms and mandating the closure of non-compliant tanneries that continued to discharge effluents without mitigation measures.
The petitioners submitted a plea to halt the persistent pollution of the area, contesting the government’s inaction and citing continued excessive contamination of the river despite the installation of pollution control measures by the tanneries. They sought individual compensation for the affected residents and measures to rehabilitate the deteriorated ecology. Their claim drew heavily upon prior court directives and highlighted the tanneries’ failure to enact effective pollution mitigation measures.
In August 1996, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict in favor of the petitioners and issued several decisive measures. First, the Court levied a fine of 10,000 Rupees on each tannery operating in the affected regions. Second, it mandated the establishment of an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Act vested with comprehensive powers to combat pollution. This authority, endowed with the power to shut down non-compliant industries, was instructed to enforce the precautionary and polluter pays principles, to assess environmental and individual damages and to determine compensation owed by polluters. Third, all tanneries were directed to implement pollution control or treatment plans by November 30, 1996, subject to state approval. Failure to obtain consent would result in closure. Lastly, Mr. M.C. Mehta, counsel for the petitioners, was honored with an award of 50,000 Rupees from the State of Tamil Nadu in recognition of his environmental advocacy.
In reaching this decision, the Court acknowledged the significance of the tanneries in contributing to foreign exchange earnings and local employment. Nonetheless, it sought to strike a balance between industrial growth and environmental preservation within the framework of sustainable development. Emphasizing the paramount importance of environmental protection under both international law (Stockholm and Rio Declarations, Brundtland Report) and Indian constitutional and statutory law (Arts. 21, 47, 48a and 51a (g) of the Constitution and Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Environment Act as well as the Water and Air Act), the Court concluded that the persistent pollution and inadequate control measures warranted the mandated actions.