Supreme Court Orders Strict Measures to Curb Tanneries’ Pollution in Tamil Nadu, Upholds “Polluter Pays” and “Precautionary” Principles

Landmark judgment mandates closure of non-compliant tanneries, establishment of pollution control authority, and compensation for environmental damage and affected residents

In a landmark judgment dated August 28, 1996, the Supreme Court of India in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India issued comprehensive directions aimed at controlling severe water pollution caused by tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu. The Court’s ruling reinforces key environmental jurisprudence by upholding the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays” principle as integral to Indian environmental law.

The case arose from a public interest petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, highlighting the environmental degradation caused by untreated effluent discharged by over 900 tanneries in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi, and Chengai M.G.R. These pollutants were contaminating the Palar River - the main source of drinking and irrigation water for local residents - and rendering approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land infertile. The effluents contained hazardous chemicals used in tanning processes, including sodium chloride, lime, ammonia, sulphuric acid, and dyes, all contributing to the pollution of surface and groundwater.

The Court noted that despite repeated warnings and orders over the previous decade, most tanneries had failed to install or properly operate effluent treatment plants (ETPs) or connect to common effluent treatment plants (CETPs). Investigations by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) confirmed that only 7 of the 30 proposed CETPs were operational, and even these were not functioning up to standards. Water samples revealed that groundwater and river water quality were well below permissible limits, unfit for drinking or irrigation.

The Supreme Court underscored that while the leather industry is a significant foreign exchange earner and employment generator, economic gains cannot justify environmental destruction or public health hazards. The Court emphasized the internationally recognized concept of “Sustainable Development,” quoting the Brundtland Report definition: development that meets present needs without compromising future generations’ ability to meet theirs. It declared that the principles of “Precautionary” and “Polluter Pays” had been accepted as part of Indian law and must be rigorously enforced.

The “Precautionary Principle” requires statutory authorities to anticipate and prevent environmental damage even in the absence of full scientific certainty, placing the onus on polluters to prove their activities are environmentally safe. The “Polluter Pays” principle holds polluting industries absolutely liable to compensate affected individuals and bear the cost of restoring damaged ecology.

In light of these principles, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to immediately constitute a specialized authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, headed by a retired High Court judge and experts in pollution control. This authority was empowered to issue binding directions, assess environmental damage, identify affected persons, and determine fair compensation payable by polluters for both individual harm and ecological restoration.

Additionally, the Court ordered:

- Imposition of a pollution fine of Rs. 10,000 on each tannery in the affected districts, to be deposited by October 31, 1996, with failure to pay resulting in closure.

- Suspension of existing closure orders, conditional on tanneries installing CETPs or individual pollution control devices by November 30, 1996, and obtaining TNPCB consent to operate by December 15, 1996.

- Closure of all tanneries failing to comply with pollution control measures or obtain consent, with enforcement by district authorities and police.

- Strict enforcement of Tamil Nadu Government Notification No. 213 (1989) banning highly polluting industries within one kilometer of water bodies.

- Maintenance of water quality standards stipulated by the TNPCB and approved by NEERI, including permissible limits on total dissolved solids (TDS).

- Framing and execution of schemes for environmental restoration funded by an “Environment Protection Fund,” consisting of fines and compensation recovered from polluters.

- Transfer of ongoing judicial monitoring to a specially constituted “Green Bench” of the Madras High Court, with liberty for parties to approach the High Court as needed.

The Court also acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta and awarded him Rs. 50,000 towards legal fees and expenses from the Tamil Nadu government.

This judgment is a milestone in Indian environmental jurisprudence, balancing economic development with ecological preservation and public health. It sets a precedent for strict accountability of polluting industries and judicial activism in environmental protection.

Statutory provisions:- Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Article 21, Article 47, Article 48A, Article 51A(g), The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8), Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (Rules 3(1), 3(2), 5(1))

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 86759