Case Note & Summary
The case involved a public interest litigation filed by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and others, seeking redress for environmental pollution caused by tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petition alleged that tanneries were discharging enormous quantities of untreated effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways, open lands, and ultimately into the River Palar, which was the main source of water supply for residents of the area. According to the petitioner, the entire surface and sub-soil water of River Palar had been polluted, resulting in non-availability of potable water. A preliminary survey by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Center, Vellore, indicated that nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the Tanneries Belt had become partially or totally unfit for cultivation. Tanneries used about 170 types of chemicals in chrome tanning, including sodium chloride, lime, sodium sulphate, chromium sulphate, fat liquor, ammonia, and sulphuric acid, and nearly 35 litres of water per kilogram of finished leather, generating dangerously large quantities of toxic effluents. An independent survey by Peace Members covering 13 villages of Dindigal and Peddiar Chatram Panchayat Unions revealed that 350 out of 467 wells used for drinking and irrigation had been polluted, forcing women and children to walk miles for drinking water. A report by lawyers M.R. Ramanan and P.S. Subramanium, based on a technical report dated 28 May 1983, found 176 chemicals including acids in tannery effluents and noted that the Ambur Municipality had not exercised its powers under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Affidavits filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in 1992 acknowledged 584 tanneries in North Arcot Ambedkar District, of which 443 had applied for consent and only 33 had set up effluent treatment plants despite a deadline of 31 July 1985. The court had been monitoring the matter for about four years and passed several orders. On 1 May 1995, the court divided 553 industries into three categories, giving three months to some to complete effluent treatment plants and directing closure of 57 tanneries with immediate effect. On 28 July 1995, closure was suspended for seven industries for eight weeks. On 8 September 1995, the court granted time until 31 December 1995 to about 299 industries and directed closure of about 162 tanneries. Counsel for some tanneries argued that setting up of effluent treatment plants was progressing satisfactorily and sought more time, while the court found many tanneries had not even started primary work. The court directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Collector, and Senior Superintendent of Police to enforce closure orders and file compliance reports. The extracted portion of the judgment ends before the final operative order, but the court's approach indicates strict enforcement of environmental norms and the duty of authorities to prevent pollution.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Pollution Control - Industries discharging untreated effluent into water bodies and land cause environmental degradation and must install effluent treatment plants - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 63; Constitution of India, Article 32 - The Supreme Court in a public interest litigation noted that tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharged untreated toxic effluents into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways, and rivers, polluting groundwater and making water unfit for drinking. The court directed that industries failing to set up effluent treatment plants be closed and imposed compliance timelines. Held that prolonged non-compliance justified immediate closure and pollution fine. (Paras not numbered in extracted text) B) Environmental Law - Duty of Municipal and Pollution Control Authorities - Authorities must exercise statutory powers to control pollution and protect public health - Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, Sections 226 to 231, 249 to 253, 338 to 342; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 63 - The court observed that Ambur Municipality had not exercised its powers under the Madras District Municipalities Act and the Pollution Control Board had not exercised powers under Section 63 of the Water Act. The court directed authorities to issue notices, inspect plants, and enforce closure orders. Held that statutory authorities are duty-bound to act against polluting industries. (Paras not numbered in extracted text) C) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Article 32 of the Constitution permits public interest litigation to enforce environmental rights and compel state action against pollution - Constitution of India, Article 32 - The writ petition was filed by a citizens' welfare forum against the State and Union of India seeking remedial action against tannery pollution. The court monitored the matter for years, passed closure orders, and directed compliance. Held that the Supreme Court can issue continuing mandamus to protect the environment. (Paras not numbered in extracted text) D) Environmental Law - Closure and Penalty for Non-Compliance - Industries failing to set up effluent treatment plants despite repeated orders are liable to closure and pollution fine - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - The court gave three months' notice to some tanneries, granted time until 31 December 1995 to about 299 industries, but directed closure of 57 and later about 162 tanneries that had not taken steps. It also suspended closure for seven industries for eight weeks pending inspection. Held that repeated non-compliance with environmental orders warrants stringent enforcement. (Paras not numbered in extracted text)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu were causing environmental degradation by discharging untreated effluent, what directions were necessary to control such pollution, and how to enforce compliance with effluent treatment requirements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed that tanneries discharging untreated effluent must install effluent treatment plants. It gave time to some tanneries (about 299) until 31 December 1995, directed closure of 57 tanneries immediately on 1 May 1995, later suspended closure for seven industries for eight weeks, and on 8 September 1995 directed closure of about 162 tanneries with immediate effect. The court directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Collector, and Senior Superintendent of Police to enforce closure orders and file compliance reports. The extracted portion of the judgment ends before the final operative order, but the court's approach indicates strict enforcement of environmental norms.
Law Points
- Industries must install effluent treatment plants before discharging effluents
- Pollution control boards must exercise powers under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- 1974
- Continued non-compliance with environmental orders warrants closure and pollution fine
- Public interest litigation under Article 32 can address environmental pollution
- Statutory authorities have a duty to prevent pollution under Madras District Municipalities Act
- 1920
- Court can issue continuing mandamus to protect environment
