1. Closure of industrial unit for repeated violations of environmental norms under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 194
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Vedanta Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 10159-10168 of 2020 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 10461-10462 of 2020 And Civil Appeal Nos 276-285 of 2021
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Important Points
The judgment establishes the principle that environmental violations, including pollution and non-compliance with environmental standards, can lead to the closure of industrial establishments. It also emphasizes the importance of balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns.
Subject
Environmental Law - Pollution Control and Regulation
Act Referred
Headnote
Environmental Violations - Closure of Copper Smelter - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Article 136 of the Constitution - The judgment discusses the violations of environmental norms by the copper smelter, the court's analysis of the High Court's decision, and the application of Article 136 of the Constitution in dismissing the Special Leave Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the closure of a copper smelter operated by Vedanta Limited in Tamil Nadu due to violations of environmental norms. The judgment discusses the background of the case, the findings of the High Court, and the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the copper smelter had committed serious violations of environmental and other laws, including operating without necessary permissions, causing pollution, and failing to comply with environmental standards. The Court also analyzed the jurisdiction of the High Court and the application of Article 136 of the Constitution in dismissing the Special Leave Petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the environmental violations by the copper smelter, the jurisdiction of the High Court in enquiring into the violations, and the application of Article 136 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the High Court did not commit an error of jurisdiction in enquiring into the environmental violations and that interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was not warranted. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were also dismissed. The Court upheld the observations of the High Court regarding the lack of alacrity on the part of the Pollution Control Board in discharging its duties.
Judgement Key Points
The court held that environmental violations by industrial units justify regulatory actions such as closure, emphasizing the importance of adhering to environmental norms to protect public welfare and the environment. It also affirmed that judicial review under constitutional provisions allows for oversight of statutory authorities' enforcement of environmental laws, especially when violations are serious and persistent.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
environmental law
- environmental principles
- statutory regulation
- administrative law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Rao, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pande, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tandon, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Rao, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pande, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tandon, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court exceeded jurisdiction by evaluating environmental violations beyond the specific grounds cited in closure orders while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. Severe and repeated environmental breaches, including improper hazardous waste disposal and operating without consent, outweigh economic contributions and employment generation. (Para 19 , 22 , 24 , 26 )
4. Fundamental right to a clean environment, sustainable development, polluter pays principle, and public trust doctrine justify closure of industries committing severe environmental violations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 )
5. Special Leave Petitions and Civil Appeals dismissed; closure of the industrial unit upheld. (Para 30 , 33 )
6. Can a High Court evaluate the entirety of a matter beyond specific grounds of a closure order if the petitioner consents to such a full evaluation?
Yes, if the petitioner expressly consents to the court enquiring into all facets of the matter to determine entitlement to renewal of permissions, the court does not commit an error of jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. Does the economic contribution and employment generation of an industry preclude its closure for environmental violations?
No. While economic contributions are relevant, they must be balanced against the fundamental right to a clean environment, the polluter pays principle, and the public trust doctrine. (Para 24 , 25 )
8. What is the legal status of the right to a clean environment in India?
The right to a clean environment, including clean air, water, and uncontaminated soil, is an indispensable entitlement and an essential component of human rights. (Para 26 , 28 )
9. What is the principle of intergenerational equity in environmental law?
Intergenerational equity suggests that present residents hold the earth in trust for future generations, necessitating the conscientious conservation and responsible management of natural resources. (Para 27 )
JUDGMENT :
| Table of Contents | |
| A. | SLP (C) Nos 10159‐10168 and 10461‐10462 of 2020 |
| i. Background | |
| ii. The judgment of this Court in 2013 | |
| iii. The decision in this case | |
| a. Violations of environmental norms and consequent harm | |
| b. The High Court did not commit an error of jurisdiction | |
| c. Interference under Article 136 is not warranted | |
| B. | Civil Appeal Nos. 276‐285 of 2021 |
A. SLP (C) Nos 10159-10168 and 10461-10462 of 2020
i. Background
1. The Special Leave Petitions arise from a judgment dated 18 August 2020 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of ten petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. A series of orders passed in April and May 2018 by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board1[“TNPCB”] and by the Government of Tamil Nadu and an order dated 29 March 2013 passed by the former form the subject of the challenge.
3. By the orders impugned, the copper smelter operated by the petitioner (Vedanta Limited) at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu was directed to be closed for violations of numerous environmental norms.
4. Initially, there was a challenge before the National Green Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was placed in issue before this Court by the TNPCB and became the subject matter of a judgment delivered by this Court on 18 February 2019, reported as Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited., (2019) 19 SCC 479 While coming to the conclusion that there was an absence of jurisdiction on the part of the National Green Tribunal, this Court granted liberty to the operator of the unit to move the High Court in appropriate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. This resulted in the institution of the petitions before the High Court, as noticed above, and the judgment of the High Court which has been questioned in these proceedings.
ii. The judgment of this Court in 2013
6. An earlier judgment of this Court, reported as Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575 concerned the same unit as in the present proceedings. Environmental clearances were granted to the unit in 1995 and it commenced production in 1997. Separate writ petitions were instituted before the High Court, inter alia for directions to cancel the environmental clearances; close the operation of the unit; and to the state to take action against the unit for its failure to take safety measures to remedy pollution and to protect against industrial accidents. By an order dated 28 September 2010, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the unit be closed. On appeal, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Sterlite Industries (supra) adjudicated the validity of this order. This Court held that:
a. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the decision to grant environmental clearance on the ground of procedural impropriety;
b. The High Court was not justified in directing the closure of the plant on the ground that it was located in the SIPCOT industrial complex which was within a 25 km radius of four ecologically sensitive islands in the Gulf of Mannar. This is because one of the consent orders permitted the establishment of the plant at this location. However, the possibility of shifting the plant in the future was not precluded, if it became necessary for the purpose of conserving the environment;
c. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the exercise of power by the TNPCB, which reduced the width of the mandated green belt in the no-objection certificate;
d. Article 21 of the Constitution empowered the High Court to direct the plant to be closed if it was found to be polluting the environment, notwithstanding the fact that environmental clearances had been granted. This could be done if no other remedial measure was available; and
e. Inspections of the unit indicated that some emissions and effluents were beyond the
