Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Special Leave Petitions and the civil appeals are dismissed, affirming the High Court's closure order and finding no ground for interference under Article 136.

Summary

Vedanta Limited operates a copper smelter at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State Government ordered its closure for repeated violations of environmental norms, including operating without consent, improper hazardous waste management, and dumping copper slag. Vedanta challenged the closure before the Madras High Court, which upheld the order, and subsequently filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court alleging jurisdictional error and seeking relief under Article 136. The Supreme Court examined the factual findings, the applicability of the polluter pays principle, public trust doctrine, and the duty of statutory authorities, and concluded that the High Court had not erred and that interference was unwarranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and the related civil appeals, affirming the closure order and the observations on the Pollution Control Board’s delayed action.

Issues considered

The legality of the High Court's order directing closure of the copper smelter under the Water and Air Acts.
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain interference under Article 136 in the present circumstances.
The applicability of the polluter pays principle, public trust doctrine, and sustainable development in assessing environmental violations.
The responsibility and alleged delay of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in exercising its regulatory powers.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Environmental pollutionCopper smelterEnvironmental normsIndustrial establishmentEnvironmental violationsJudicial reviewStatutory authorities and bodiesPrinciples of sustainable developmentPolluter pays principlePublic trust doctrineBalancing economic interestsPublic welfare concernsEconomic growthHealth and welfareHuman rightsInternational treaties and agreementsPollution Control BoardEnvironmental lawEnvironmental degradationNatural resourcesIntergenerational equityEnvironmental heritage

Judgment

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1121 : 2024 INSC 175

Vedanta Limited
v.
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10159-10168 of 2020)
29 February 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B . Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Impugned orders passed by the High Court directing closure of the
copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial complex in
Tamil Nadu for violations of numerous environmental norms, if justified.

Headnotes
Environmental Laws – Environmental pollution and degradation
– Copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial
complex in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu – Closure of, for
violations of numerous environmental norms by the High
Court – Interference with:
Held: Industrial establishment was not exculpated of its liability for
environmental violations – Closure of the industry is undoubtedly not
a matter of first choice – Nature of the violations and the repeated
nature of the breaches coupled with the severity of the breach of
environmental norms left neither the statutory authorities nor the
High Court with the option to take any other view unless they were
to be oblivious of their plain duty – Unit, has been contributing to
the productive assets of the nation and providing employment and
revenue in the area – The Court has to be mindful of the principles of
sustainable development, the polluter pays principle, and the public
trust doctrine which underscore the importance of balancing economic
interests with environmental and public welfare concerns – While
the industry has played a role in economic growth, the health and
welfare of the residents of the area is a matter of utmost concern –
State Government is responsible for preserving and protecting their
concerns – All persons have the right to breathe clean air, drink clean
water, live a life free from disease and sickness, and for those who
till the earth, have access to uncontaminated soil – These rights are
not only recognized as essential components of human rights but
are also enshrined in various international treaties and agreements –
They must be protected and upheld by governments and institutions
1122 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

– Without these basic rights, increased revenue and employment
cease to have any real meaning – Thus, interference u/Art. 136 not
warranted – High Court justified in making the observations in regard
to the lack of alacrity on the part of the Pollution Control Board in
discharging its duties, thus the observations not to be expunged or
obliterated from the record. [Paras 22-25, 28, 29, 32]
Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Exercise of power u/Art.136,
when:
Held: Is to be exercised sparingly and only when exceptional
circumstances exist which justify the exercise of its discretion – On
facts, as regards the challenge to the order passed by the High
Court directing the closure of the copper smelter operated by the
petitioner at the industrial complex in Tamil Nadu, this Court to apply
the principles of judicial review bearing on whether the findings
arrived at by the High Court are borne out from the record or
conversely, are based on misappreciation of law and fact. [Para 18]
Doctrines/Principles – Polluter pays principle – Meaning of:
Held: Is a widely accepted norm in international and domestic
environmental law – It asserts that those who pollute or degrade the
environment should bear the costs of mitigation and restoration –
Polluter pays principle serves as a reminder that economic activities
should not come at the expense of environmental degradation or
the health of the population. [Para 24]
Doctrines/Principles – Public trust doctrine – Meaning of:
Held: Public trust doctrine, recognized in various jurisdictions,
including India, establishes that the state holds natural resources
in trust for the benefit of the public – It reinforces the idea that the
State must act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the
common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace
are protected against exploitation or degradation. [Para 25]
Intergenerational equity – Concept of :
Held: It suggests that the “present residents of the earth hold
the earth in trust for future generations and at the same time the
present generation is entitled to reap benefits from it” – Planet
and its invaluable resources must be conscientiously conserved
and responsibly managed for the use and enjoyment of future
generations, emphasising the enduring obligation to safeguard the
environmental heritage for the well-being of all. [Para 27]
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1123

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Case Law Cited
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries
(India) Limited, [2019] 3 SCR 777 : (2019) 19 SCC 479;
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India, (2013)
4 SCC 575; Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar,
AIR (1961) SC 1708; Pritam Singh v. State, [1950] 1 SCR
453 : (1950) SCC 189; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar,
[1991] 1 SCR 5 : (1991) 1 SCC 598; Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum v. Union of India, [1996] Suppl. 5 SCR
241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647; G. Sundarrajan v. Union of
India, [2013] 8 SCR 631 : (2013) 6 SCC 620; D. Swamy
v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, [2022] 15
SCR 547 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1278 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Werner Scholtz, ‘Equity’ in (Lavanya Rajamani and
Jaqueline Peel, eds.) The Oxford Handbook of
International Environmental Law (2nd edn., 2021) –
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution
Act) 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981.

List of Keywords
Environmental pollution; Copper smelter; Environmental norms;
Industrial establishment; Environmental violations; Judicial
review; Statutory authorities and bodies; Principles of sustainable
development; Polluter pays principle; Public trust doctrine;
Balancing economic interests; Public welfare concerns; Economic
growth; Health and welfare; Human rights; International treaties
and agreements; Economic growth; Sustainable progress; Pollution
Control Board; Environmental law; Environmental degradation;
Natural resources; Intergenerational equity; Environmental heritage.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 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
1124 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos.5756, 5764, 5771, 5772, 5773,
5774, 5776, 5792, 5801 and 5793 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., C.S. Vaidyanathan, Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, Pinaki Mishra, Shyam Divan, Krishnan Venugopal,
Sanjay Upadhyay, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs., Ms. Purnima Krishna,
Siddhant Kohli, Vinayak Goel, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Karamveer
Singh Yadav, R. Gunaalan, Nitish Raj, Sachin S., Arunpandiyan
S., P. S. Sudheer, Bharat Sood, Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Miranda
Solaman, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, D. P. Mohanty,
Sumit Goel, Ms. Sreeparna Basak, Ishan Nagar, Jayant Bajaj, Ms.
Aditi, Sudipto Sircar, Adith Deshmukh, Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Ms.
Mansi Bachani, Ms. Meghna Sharma, M/s. Parekh & Co., M. Yogesh
Kanna, G. Ananda Selvam, Ms. Msm Aasai Thambi, Mayilsamy. K,
Dr. Kayathri, G. Muthu Kumaran, Sanchit Maheshwari, Ms. Lakshmi
Ramamurthy, Mayank Pandey, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Padmesh Mishra,
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, M.F. Philip, D. Kumanan, Mrs. Deepa. S, Sheikh F.
Kalia, Veshal Tyago, A Yogeswaran, Ms. B Poonghkhullali, T. V. S.
Raghavendra Sreyas, Siddharth Vasudev, Parijat Kishore, S. Beno
Bencigar, Satya Mitra, Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Paul Kumar Kalai, A.
Selvin Raja, Sabarish Subramanian, G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj
Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, S. B. Kamalanathan, P.V. Harikrishnan,
Sunil Singh Rawat, Kartik Sandal, Anshuman Ashok, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
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
* Ed Note : Pagination as per original judgment.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1125

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

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.
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.

1 “TNPCB”
2 [2019] 3 SCR 777 : (2019) 19 SCC 479.
1126 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 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 permissible limit prescribed by

3 (2013) 4 SCC 575.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1127

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

TNPCB. The unit was polluting the environment in violation of
legal norms (detailed in the following paragraphs).
7. In terms of the directions of this Court, TNPCB issued directions
for the removal of deficiencies. It was then claimed on behalf of
the unit that the deficiencies had been removed. On the basis of a
joint inspection by National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute4 and the Central Pollution Control Board,5 this Court found
that several suggestions towards remediation had been complied
with. This Court was of the view that closure was therefore not the
only remedy. Though there was a suppression of fact by the unit, the
Court was not inclined to order closure at that stage and imposed
instead a requirement of compensation quantified at Rs. 100 crores
for non-compliance with environmental parameters and operating
without consent in terms of the applicable environmental law:
“47. … we are of the view that the appellant Company
should be held liable for a compensation of Rs 100 crores
for having polluted the environment in the vicinity of its
plant and for having operated the plant without a renewal
of the consents by the TNPCB for a fairly long period
and according to us, any less amount, would not have
the desired deterrent effect on the appellant Company.”
8. While setting aside the order of closure, this Court nonetheless
observed that its judgment would not prevent TNPCB from issuing
directions to the unit including a direction for closure, if required.
iii. The decision in this case
a. Violations of environmental norms and consequent harm
9. Before assessing the submissions of the parties, it is necessary to
understand the basis for the decision of the High Court as well of this
Court in 2013. It is not possible for this Court to assess the merits of
the submissions, shorn of the context in which the decision(s) were
rendered. Both this Court in Sterlite Industries (supra) as well as the
High Court in the impugned judgment found that the unit of the petitioner
was guilty of serious violations of environmental and other laws.

4 “NEERI”
5 “CPCB”
1128 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10. In 2013, this Court in Sterlite Industries (supra) found that the unit
had violated the law in more than one way:
a. The unit had caused pollution between 1997 and 2012;
b. The reports of NEERI indicated non-compliance with
environmental standards;
c. The unit had operated without a renewal of the consent to
operate for a long period of time; and
d. There was an act of suppression and misrepresentation on the
part of the unit in the proceedings before this Court.
11. In the impugned judgment, the High Court inter alia found that:
a. The unit had operated without consent from TNPCB for about
sixteen years;
b. The unit had operated without hazardous waste management
authorisation for about ten years;
c. The unit did not have appropriate systems in place for the
disposal of hazardous waste;
d. There was a substantial presence of Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) in the water;
e. The unit dumped large amounts of copper slag, leading to air
and water pollution. The dumped copper slag also caused the
river in Thootukudi to flood. This was a violation of the conditions
in terms of which the relevant authorities had granted consent;
f. The unit failed to comply with the requirement of maintaining
a green belt;
g. The regulator, TNPCB, did not exercise its powers in a timely
and effective fashion, as mandated by law; and
h. TNPCB established that the unit flouted the law for over twenty-
two years. There was no error in the decision of the authorities
to direct the closure of the unit.
12. This Court must have due regard to these findings of fact and law
while adjudicating whether grounds for interference with the impugned
judgment are made out.
b. The High Court did not commit an error of jurisdiction
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1129

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

13. Essentially, five grounds were urged in the orders for the closure of
the unit. They are:
a. The unit had failed to furnish ground water examination reports
to ascertain the impact on ground water quality;
b. An extensive amount of copper slag lying on third party land had
not been removed. A physical barrier had not been constructed
between the copper slag and the river to prevent the slag from
reaching the river;
c. The unit had applied for authorization to generate and dispose
of hazardous waste but did not have an extant licence;
d. There was a failure to measure emissions in terms of the
National Air Quality Ambient Standards; and
e. The requirement of a gypsum pond (mandated by guidelines
issued by CPCB) had not been observed.
14. Apart from the merits, the principal submission which has been
urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel
(supported by Mr Krishnan Venugopal, senior counsel) is that since
the closure was founded on the above five grounds, the High Court
was not justified, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, in enquiring into other grounds of environmental
violations.
15. The above submission has been opposed both by Mr CS
Vaidyanathan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the TNPCB
and Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu. They have submitted, on
the basis of the reliefs which were sought in the writ proceedings,
that the petitioners had not merely challenged the orders adverse
to them but had, in addition, sought a mandamus for the issuance
of renewal permissions. Hence, it was urged that in such an event,
it was open to the High Court not only to enquire into the grounds
on which closure had been directed but to determine whether the
petitioner was entitled to a renewal of permissions.
16. From a reading of the judgment of the High Court, it has emerged that
the petitioner had expressly consented to the High Court enquiring
into all the facets of the matter so as to determine fully and finally
as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to a renewal of the
1130 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

permissions which were granted to it. Otherwise, even if the orders
impugned were to be set aside, both the Board and the Government
would have been justified in requesting the High Court to remand
the proceedings back to the competent statutory authorities for re-
determination afresh. This course of action was obviated on the
petitioner submitting to the High Court that it was ready and willing
to have the High Court evaluate the entirety of the matter in its full
perspective.
17. The petitioner having agreed to this course of action, we are not
inclined to entertain the submission that the High Court has committed
an error of jurisdiction. The hearing before the High Court spanned
forty-two days and the High Court has rendered a judgment on all
factual and legal aspects, after considering as many as thirty-eight
issues.
c. Interference under Article 136 is not warranted
18. In considering the merits of the challenge, this Court would have
to apply settled principles of judicial review bearing on whether the
findings which have been arrived at by the High Court are borne
out from the record or conversely, are based on misappreciation of
law and fact. This Court may exercise its power under Article 136
sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist which justify
the exercise of its discretion.6
19. From the material which has emerged on the record and having
considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the areas
which are matters of serious concern are:
a. The failure of the petitioner at the material time to remove the
copper slag which was dumped indiscriminately at almost eleven
sites in the vicinity including private land adjoining the river;
b. The failure to abide by the conditions in the ‘consent to operate’
governing the disposal of gypsum;
c. The failure to obtain authorisation for the disposal of hazardous
waste; and
d. The failure of the petitioner to continue remediating the pollution

6 Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1708; Pritam Singh v. State, [1950] 1 SCR
453 : 1950 SCC 189.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1131

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

caused by it despite findings and directions by multiple judicial
fora at different points in time, including by this Court in 2013.
20. The judgment of this Court in Sterlite Industries (supra) afforded
the petitioner sufficient opportunity to take remedial action. The
consequence of the adjudication by this Court was not to obliterate
the environmental violations which had preceded it. This Court came
to the conclusion that there indeed were environmental violations,
which were additionally compounded by a suppression of material
facts. As the court held:
“48. We now come to the submission of Mr Prakash that
we should not grant relief to the appellants because of
the misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
made in the special leave petition that the appellants have
always been running their plant with statutory consents
and approvals and misrepresentation and suppression
of material facts made in the special leave petition
that the plant was closed at the time the special leave
petition was moved and a stay order was obtained from
this Court … There is no doubt that there has been
misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
made in the special leave petition but to decline relief
to the appellants in this case would mean closure of
the plant of the appellants. … For these considerations of
public interest, we do not think it will be a proper exercise
of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution to
refuse relief on the grounds of misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts in the special leave petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. The Court in the earlier round of litigation would conceivably have
been justified in rejecting the challenge to the judgment of the High
Court but nonetheless held that closure was a matter of last option
and that an opportunity for remediation ought to be granted. At the
same time, while imposing an environmental compensation quantified
at Rs. 100 crores, this Court clarified that TNPCB would be acting
within the scope of its statutory powers including in directing closure,
in the future. As the Court held:
“50. … we make it clear that this judgment will not stand in
the way of the TNPCB issuing directions to the appellant
1132 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Company, including a direction for closure of the plant,
for the protection of environment in accordance with law.
51. We also make it clear that the award of damages
of Rs 100 crores by this judgment against the appellant
Company for the period from 1997 to 2012 will not stand in
the way of any claim for damages for the aforesaid period
or any other period in a civil court or any other forum in
accordance with law.”7
22. The tenor of the reasoning and the directions of this Court, therefore,
leave no manner of doubt that the industrial establishment was
not exculpated of its liability for environmental violations. The High
Court has, in this backdrop, undertaken a copious analysis of the
grounds on which action adverse to the unit has been taken both
by the TNPCB and the State Government.
23. In the notes of submissions which have been tendered before this
Court, an alternative perspective on facts has been sought to be
established. We are not inclined in the exercise of the jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the findings
of facts which have been arrived at by the High Court. The High
Court, it must be noted, was exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to judicially review the findings of statutory
authorities and bodies entrusted with requisite powers under the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1974 and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. Apart from the exercise
of jurisdiction by the statutory authorities, the proceedings before this
Court had been preceded by an evaluation by the High Court which
is not shown to suffer from error that would warrant the invocation
of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. No special
circumstances exist which justify the exercise of discretion by this
Court nor is the conscience of the Court shocked by the judgment
of the High Court.
24. The closure of the industry is undoubtedly not a matter of first
choice. The nature of the violations and the repeated nature of the
breaches coupled with the severity of the breach of environmental
norms would in the ultimate analysis have left neither the statutory

7 Sterlite Industries (supra).
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1133

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

authorities nor the High Court with the option to take any other
view unless they were to be oblivious of their plain duty. We are
conscious of the fact that the unit, as this Court observed in its
decision in 2013, has been contributing to the productive assets
of the nation and providing employment and revenue in the area.
While these aspects have undoubted relevance, the Court has to
be mindful of other well-settled principles including the principles of
sustainable development, the polluter pays principle, and the public
trust doctrine. The polluter pays principle, a widely accepted norm
in international and domestic environmental law, asserts that those
who pollute or degrade the environment should bear the costs of
mitigation and restoration. This principle serves as a reminder that
economic activities should not come at the expense of environmental
degradation or the health of the population.
25. In addition, the public trust doctrine, recognized in various jurisdictions,
including India, establishes that the state holds natural resources
in trust for the benefit of the public. It reinforces the idea that the
State must act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the
common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace
are protected against exploitation or degradation. These principles
underscore the importance of balancing economic interests with
environmental and public welfare concerns. While the industry has
played a role in economic growth, the health and welfare of the
residents of the area is a matter of utmost concern. In the ultimate
analysis, the State Government is responsible for preserving and
protecting their concerns.
26. As consistently held in numerous decisions of this Court, the
unequivocal right to a clean environment is an indispensable
entitlement extended to all persons.8 Air, which is polluted beyond
the permissible limit, not only has a detrimental impact on all life
forms including humans, but also triggers a cascade of ecological
ramifications. The same is true for polluted water, where the pervasive
contamination poses a profound threat to the delicate balance of
ecosystems. The impact of environmental pollution and degradation
is far reaching : it is often not only severe but also persists over

8 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, [1991] 1 SCR 5 : (1991) 1 SCC 598; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum
v. Union of India, [1996] Suppl. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647.
1134 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the long term. While some adverse effects may be immediately
evident, the intensity of other kinds of harm reveals itself over time.
Persons who live in surrounding areas may develop diseases which
not only result in financial burdens but also impact the quality of
life. The development and growth of children in these communities
may become stunted, creating a tragic legacy of compromised
potential. Basic necessities, such as access to potable water, may
not be met, exacerbating the challenges faced by these already
vulnerable populations. Undoubtedly, such adverse effects are felt
more deeply by marginalised and poor communities, for whom it
becomes increasingly difficult to escape the cycle of poverty.
27. This Court is also alive to the concept of intergenerational equity,9
which suggests that “present residents of the earth hold the earth
in trust for future generations and at the same time the present
generation is entitled to reap benefits from it.”10 The planet and
its invaluable resources must be conscientiously conserved and
responsibly managed for the use and enjoyment of future generations,
emphasising the enduring obligation to safeguard the environmental
heritage for the well-being of all.
28. It is an undeniable and fundamental truth that all persons have
the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, live a life free from
disease and sickness, and for those who till the earth, have access
to uncontaminated soil. These rights are not only recognized as
essential components of human rights but are also enshrined in
various international treaties and agreements, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity,
and the Paris Agreement. As such, they must be protected and upheld
by governments and institutions worldwide, even as we generate
employment and industry. The ultimate aim of all our endeavours is for
all people to be able to live ‘the good life.’ Without these basic rights,
increased revenue and employment cease to have any real meaning.
It is not merely about economic growth but about ensuring the well-
being and dignity of every individual. As we pursue development, we

9 This Court has previously recognized the importance of this principle including in G. Sundarrajan v.
Union of India, [2013] 8 SCR 631 : (2013) 6 SCC 620 and D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board, [2022] 15 SCR 547 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1278.
10 Werner Scholtz, ‘Equity’ in (Lavanya Rajamani and Jaqueline Peel, eds.) The Oxford Handbook of
International Environmental Law (2nd edn., 2021).
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1135

Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

must prioritize the protection of these rights, recognizing that they
are essential for sustainable progress. Only by safeguarding these
fundamental rights can we truly create a world where everyone has
the opportunity to thrive and prosper.
29. We have heard these proceedings for several days and after a
careful evaluation of the factual and legal material, we have come
to the conclusion that the Special Leave Petitions do not warrant
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
30. For the above reasons, the Special Leave Petitions shall stand
dismissed.
31. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
B. Civil Appeal Nos. 276-285 of 2021
32. TNPCB is aggrieved by the observations contained in the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated 18 August 2020 about its failure to
exercise its regulatory functions in a timely and conscientious manner
and has preferred appeals in this regard. We are of the view that
the High Court was justified in making the observations in regard
to the lack of alacrity on the part of the Pollution Control Board in
discharging its duties. The observations of the High Court do not
call to be either expunged or obliterated from the record.
33. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed.
34. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Special Leave Petitions and
Civil Appeals dismissed.