Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 28 August 1996 · 3 judges
The Court held that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of Indian environmental law, and directed an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to assess and recover compensation from polluting tanneries in Tamil Nadu.
Facts
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum filed a public interest petition under Article 32 against pollution caused by tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu discharging untreated effluent into fields, waterways and the river Palar, the main source of water supply. Surface and sub-soil water was polluted, wells became unfit, and a university survey put about 35,000 hectares of farmland as partly or wholly unfit for cultivation. For about ten years the State and the Pollution Control Board had urged the tanneries to set up effluent treatment plants, with Central subsidy for common plants. Over about five years the Court passed many orders, closed non-complying units, suspended closures to allow compliance, and obtained NEERI reports, which found that even the operating common effluent treatment plants were not working satisfactorily. More than 900 tanneries operated in five districts.
Questions before the Court
- Are the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle part of the law of India?
- What remedies should issue against tanneries that had polluted the environment for years despite repeated orders?
What the Court held
- Sustainable development, as a balance between ecology and development, is part of customary international law. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are its essential features and, in view of Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g) and the Water, Air and Environment Acts, are part of the environmental law of India.
- The precautionary principle means that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of degradation; lack of scientific certainty is no reason to postpone measures where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage; and the onus is on the developer or industrialist to show that the action is environmentally benign.
- Under the polluter pays principle the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends to compensating the victims of pollution and also to the cost of restoring the damaged environment.
- Rules of customary international law not contrary to municipal law are deemed to be incorporated in domestic law. The right to a pollution-free environment is part of the basic jurisprudence of the land.
- The Central Government must constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act to apply both principles, assess and recover compensation, and close defaulters. Every tannery in the five districts was fined Rs. 10,000 and required to set up treatment plants and obtain Board consent, and monitoring was transferred to a Green Bench of the Madras High Court.
Why it matters
The judgment declares the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle to be part of Indian environmental law, defines the precautionary principle in three parts including a reversed onus of proof on the polluter, and extends polluter liability to the cost of restoring the environment. It also treats customary international law not contrary to municipal law as part of domestic law, and directs the creation of an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Though the leather industry is of vital importance to the country as it generates foreign exchange and provides employment avenues it has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose as a health hazard. It cannot be permitted to expand or even to continue with the present production unless it tackles by itself the problem of pollution created by the said industry.”
“The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.”
“In view of the above mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays pcinciple are part of the environmental law of the country. Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary International Law there would be no difficultly in accepting them as part of the domestic law.”
“(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage lack of scientific certainly should not be used as the reason for postponing, measures to prevent environmental depredation. (iii)The "Onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrial to show that his action is environmentally benign.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)“"The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle by this Court Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India J.T. 1996 (2) 196.” (page 12)
- Followed in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case
- Writ petition (public interest) under Article 32 of the Constitution (number not printed in the file)
- Decided
- 28 August 1996
- Bench
- Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin, K. Venkataswami
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kuldip Singh, J.
Questions on this case
4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1 · Environmental Law Practice Set 1
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), which concerned tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharging untreated effluent, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority headed by a retired Judge of a High Court. The authority was to be constituted under:
- A. Section 5 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- B. Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- C. Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
- D. Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Show the answer
D. Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, headed by a retired High Court Judge, to deal with the situation created by the tanneries. Section 4 of the Water Act and Section 5 of the Air Act provide for State Boards, not such authorities.