Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Right to Clean Environment recognized as part of the fundamental right to life – Intergenerational Equity upheld – Sustainable Development principle reaffirmed – (Para 30-51).

Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Government’s duty to take measures to protect and improve the environment – Section 5 – Power to issue directions for closure, prohibition, or regulation of polluting industries – (Para 82-83).

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Section 24 – Prohibition on disposal of untreated effluents into water bodies – Section 25 – Mandatory requirement for industries to obtain consent for discharge – (Para 88-90).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 268 – Public Nuisance caused by environmental pollution – Section 277 – Water Pollution as a punishable offense – (Para 92).

Acts & Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (Right to a Clean Environment)
2. Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3, Section 5
3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Section 24, Section 25
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 268 (Public Nuisance), Section 277 (Polluting Water Bodies)

Subjects:

Polluter Pays Principle – Environmental Compensation – Sustainable Development – Right to Clean Environment – Zero Liquid Discharge – Ecocide – Industrial Pollution – Government Pay Principle – Intergenerational Equity – Extended Producer Responsibility – Judicial Activism

Facts:

a. Nature of the Litigation – The case involved appeals against the Madras High Court orders directing pollution control measures against tanneries in Tamil Nadu due to extensive environmental degradation in Vellore (Para 3-4).

b. Relief Sought – Petitioners sought compensation for affected individuals, restoration of the environment, and enforcement of strict pollution control norms (Para 3-4).

c. Reason for Filing the Case – Despite previous court rulings (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Case), pollution continued due to ineffective implementation by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and non-compliance by industries (Para 7-17).

d. Previous Decisions – Courts earlier emphasized the Polluter Pays Principle but enforcement remained inefficient, causing continued pollution and non-payment of compensation (Para 7-17).

Issues

1. Whether industries could escape liability despite partial compliance with pollution norms? (Para 30-51)
2. Whether compensation should be determined using a strict formula or a case-by-case assessment? (Para 52-81)
3. Whether the government shared responsibility for environmental degradation in cases of regulatory failures? (Para 82-83)
4. Whether large-scale environmental destruction in Vellore amounted to ‘ecocide’? (Para 92)

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioners' Contentions (Para 19-29)

a. Tanneries continued polluting despite repeated judicial warnings.
b. Urged the court to enforce absolute liability under the Polluter Pays Principle.
c. Demanded full compensation for farmers and affected communities.

Respondents' Contentions (Para 19-29)

a. The tannery industry contributed significantly to the economy, and strict liability would hurt employment.
b. Claimed partial compliance with pollution norms.
c. Sought leniency in imposing fines & liabilities.

Decision:

1. Industries remained liable for pollution until complete environmental restoration was achieved (Para 93-113).
2. Compensation must be paid, irrespective of industries' claims of compliance (Para 93-113).
3. Pollution levels remained critically high, warranting stricter enforcement (Para 93-113).
4. The government bore secondary responsibility under the Government Pay Principle if industries defaulted (Para 114-118).

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Polluter Pays Principle Applied Strictly – Industries must bear the cost of restoration & compensation, even if financially incapable (Para 30-51).
2. Environmental Compensation Based on Case-Specific Analysis – Courts rejected a fixed formula and instead assessed the ecosystem as a whole (Para 52-81).
3. Right to Clean Environment as Fundamental Right – The Supreme Court reaffirmed Article 21 includes a right to a pollution-free environment (Para 30-51).
4. Government’s Constitutional Duty to Prevent Degradation – Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the government must ensure compliance & impose penalties if necessary (Para 82-83).
5. Ecocide Recognized as Environmental Crime – Court held that massive & systematic pollution in Vellore amounted to ‘ecocide’, requiring criminal & civil liability (Para 92).

Directive Principles & Implementation:

1. Industries must continue paying for environmental restoration until full recovery is achieved (Para 114-118).
2. The government must enforce pollution control schemes & monitor compliance rigorously (Para 114-118).
3. If industries fail to compensate victims, the government must pay first and recover from polluters later (Para 114-118).
4. Mandatory installation of real-time pollution monitoring sensors under the Water Act (Para 88-90).
5. Industries must adopt Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) mechanisms (Para 88-90).
6. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) imposed on tanneries for full waste tracking & mitigation (Para 84-87).