Table of Contents A.

SLP (C) Nos 10159‐10168 and 10461‐10462 of 2020 ............................................................... 3 i.

Background ................................................................................................................................... 3 ii.

The judgment of this Court in 2013 ................................................................................................ 4 iii.

The decision in this case ................................................................................................................ 6 a.

Violations of environmental norms and consequent harm ............................................................................... 6 b.

The High Court did not commit an error of jurisdiction .................................................................................... 8 c.

Interference under Article 136 is not warranted .............................................................................................10 B.

Civil Appeal Nos. 276‐285 of 2021 ........................................................................................ 17 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 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.2 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.

1“TNPCB”

2(2019) 19 SCC 479.

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,3 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 3(2013) 4 SCC 575.