1. Industrial pollution of river and groundwater by tanneries — Compensation awards for ecological damage — Dispute over disbursement and continuing liability under the Polluter Pays Principle. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 65 , 66 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 253
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. By Its Secretary Mr. R. Rajebdran – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Vellore District & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23633 – 23634 of 2010)
With
All India Skin And Hide Tanners And Merchants Association – Appellant
Versus
Loss Of Ecology (Prevention & Compensation Authority) Rep. By Its Member Secretary And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26608 of 2011)
Decided On : 30-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Anand, Adv. Mr. Punishk Handa, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, AOR Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Shankar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Mohan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Yogeshwaran, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Anand, Adv. Mr. Punishk Handa, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, AOR Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Pandey, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Shankar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv.
The court reaffirmed the 'Polluter Pays Principle', establishing that polluters are absolutely liable for environmental damage and must compensate affected individuals until ecological restoration is achieved.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and 5 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Pollution caused by tanneries in Vellore District - The court directed the State to pay compensation to affected individuals as per awards dated 07.03.2001 and 24.08.2009, emphasizing the continuing liability of polluters until ecological damage is reversed. (Paras 114-115)
(B) Polluter Pays Principle - The court reiterated that polluters are absolutely liable for environmental harm and must bear the costs of restoration and compensation to affected communities. (Paras 71-72)
(C) Precautionary Principle - The court emphasized the need for preventive measures against environmental degradation, holding that the burden of proof lies with the polluter to demonstrate environmental safety. (Paras 63-64)
Facts of the case:
The Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petitions regarding compensation for pollution caused by tanneries, asserting that the pollution continues and compensation has not been fully disbursed. (Paras 3-4, 19-20)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tanneries have not achieved Zero Liquid Discharge and continue to pollute, thus holding them liable for ongoing damages. The State is directed to pay compensation and recover from polluters. (Paras 114-115)
Issues: The main issues included the continuing liability of tanneries for pollution, the adequacy of compensation, and the effectiveness of pollution control measures. (Paras 22-23)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the polluter pays principle is absolute and ongoing, requiring continuous compliance and restoration efforts from polluting industries. (Paras 71-72)
Result: Appeals allowed; the State is directed to pay compensation to affected individuals. (Paras 115)
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to healthy environment (Para 64)
-
fundamental rights
-
environmental law
- legal principles
- regulatory framework
- liability
- administrative law
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Tanners claim full payment and ZLD compliance — Environmentalists argue continuing pollution, unpaid compensation, and need for assessment beyond 1998. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
3. Continuing pollution persists despite ZLD claims — Absolute liability extends to restoration — State's regulatory failure necessitates a dual-layered responsibility system for compensation. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 77 , 83 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 113 , 114 )
4. Polluter's liability is absolute and continuing until ecological damage is reversed — State is responsible for regulatory lapses under the Government Pay Principle. (Para 71 , 72 , 75 , 113 )
5. State directed to pay pending compensation and recover from polluters — Committee constituted for ecological audit and reversal — Strict environmental and health compliance mandated. (Para 115 , 116 )
6. Does the liability of a polluter end upon payment of a determined compensation amount?
No. Liability is absolute and continuing until the actual pollution is curbed and ecological damage is reversed. Payment of a one-time compensation does not grant a right to pollute. (Para 72 , 74 , 75 , 110 , 113 )
7. What is the Government Pay Principle in the context of environmental degradation?
It holds governments accountable for regulatory and enforcement lapses. Where authorities fail to regulate polluters adequately, the State may be directed to pay victims and subsequently recover costs from the polluters. (Para 83 , 113 )
8. How does the Public Trust Doctrine apply to natural resources?
The State holds vital natural resources such as rivers, forests, and air in trust for public benefit. It has a fiduciary duty to protect them from exploitation and ensure they remain accessible. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 )
9. What is the Precautionary Principle in environmental law?
It requires the State and authorities to anticipate and prevent environmental degradation. Lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent serious or irreversible damage. (Para 77 )
10. What is the core objective of the Principle of Sustainable Development?
To strike a balance between economic advancement and environmental safeguards, ensuring development meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Para 63 )
JUDGMENT
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted. Heard all the parties and also perused the materials placed before us, including status reports/affidavits/responses filed by them. For the sake of clarity and better understanding, this judgment has been divided into the following heads :
| SL. NO. | HEADS | |
| I | PREFATORY NOTE | |
| II | RELIEF SOUGHT | |
| III | FACTUAL OVERVIEW | |
| A | GENESIS OF THE LITIGATION | |
| B | VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM CASE | |
| C | AFTERMATH OF VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM JUDGMENT | |
| IV | RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND AFFIDAVITS/REPORTS FILED BY THE AUTHORITIES | |
| V | CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES | |
| VI | ANALYSIS | |
| A | BASIC PRINCIPLES | |
| B | POLLUTION CAUSED BY TANNERIES | |
| C | CURRENT STATUS OF POLLUTION | |
| D | LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION | |
| E | DEEMING FICTION AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE | |
| F | DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION | |
| G | GOVERNMENT PAY PRINCIPLE VIS-À-VIS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT | |
| H | REDUCTION OF POLLUTION | |
| I | PROVISIONS OF THE WATER ACT | |
| VII | ECOCIDE | |
| VIII | DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS | |
| IX | CONCLUSION | |
| X | RESULT AND DIRECTIVES |
I. PREFATORY NOTE
2. Nature and its elements are worshipped as Gods since time immemorial. Our forefathers knew the importance of preserving the environment both for their own well- being and for the benefit of future generations. However, over time, human greed has led us to forget this wisdom, treating nature as expendable at our expense and that of future generations. The degradation of the natural resources and pollutions of different kinds have a cascading effect on the environment, which now is a global issue and poses a threat to the very existence of our planet. Such degradation is the catalyst for the drastic climatic changes and challenges that we are facing now. The pollution and depletion of water resources, more particularly groundwater, is a foreseeable threat to all living beings. India produces 13 percent of the world’s leather and the leather market in India is valued at approximately Rs.40,000 crores1[CLRI Report]. It is a key foreign exchange earning sector for India being the 2nd largest global exporter and provides employment to lakhs. Tannery clusters are often located in areas with limited opportunities for livelihood. Not only does this industry contribute significantly to the national economy, but the States of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Punjab also have heavy economic dependencies on it. Despite its economic importance, a heavy price is being paid by the residents of areas surrounding tanneries and the workers employed therein, particularly, in terms of health impact, land degradation and an overall decreased quality of life. For years, environmental degradation has been rampant and it is time that a final lid be put to such activities that degrade the environment in violation of law. While acknowledging the economic importance of the industry, this Court shall not be a mute spectator to the environmental consequences and the loss of life and health caused by the waste generated by tanneries. There is an urgent need to strike a balance between competing interests, evolving and implementing sustainable solutions. Development which threatens the existence will serve no purpose. The sustainable development is an imminent requirement. The policies of the States and the actions must thrive towards striking a balance between socio-economic development and preservation of the natural resources for the benefit of the future generations.
II. RELIEF SOUGHT
3. The challenge made in these appeals (arising out of SLP Nos.23633-23634 of 2010) is to the common order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras2[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”], in WP Nos. 8335 of 2008 and 19017 of 2009, whereby, the High Court dismissed the first writ petition filed by the appellant herein viz., Vellore District Environment Monitoring Com
