Holding

The Court held that the precautionary principle and polluter‑pays principle are integral to Indian environmental law and that the Central Government must constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act to enforce pollution control, impose fines, and order compensation and closure of non‑compliant tanneries.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 filed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum alleging that tanneries in five districts of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents, contaminating surface and groundwater, rendering 35,000 hectares of agricultural land unfit for cultivation and depriving residents of potable water. The Court examined whether such pollution violated the constitutional right to life and the statutory duties under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related pollution statutes, and whether the precautionary principle and polluter‑pays principle form part of Indian environmental law. It held that these principles are incorporated into domestic law, either through customary international law or statutory provisions, and that the State has a duty to prevent irreversible environmental damage. Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, to impose a fine of Rs 10,000 on each tannery, to compute and recover compensation for victims and for ecological restoration, and to enforce closure of non‑compliant units. The Court also ordered the creation of a "Green Bench" in the Madras High Court for future monitoring and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

The pollution caused by tanneries violates constitutional rights and statutory environmental obligations.
Whether the precautionary principle and polluter‑pays principle are part of Indian law.
Whether the Central Government must constitute an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act to enforce pollution control.
Whether fines, compensation and closure orders can be imposed on polluting industries.
Whether the Court can direct the enforcement of existing government orders restricting polluting industries within one kilometre of water sources.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 47, s. Article 48A, s. Article 51A(g)
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. Section 3(3), s. Section 5, s. Section 7, s. Section 8
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986s. Rule 3(1), s. Rule 3(2), s. Rule 5(1)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Subjects

environmental lawpollution controltanneriesprecautionary principlepolluter pays principlesustainable developmentpublic interest litigationenvironmental compensationindustrial closuregreen bench

Judgment

VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

AUGUST 28, 1996

[KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) B

Environmental Law :

Constitution of India, 1950 : Altic/es 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g). En-
vironmental pollution-Caused by tannelies-Untreated effluent by tanneries C
in State of Tamil Nadu---Discharge of-Thereby polluted sub-soil liver water
resulting in non-availability of potable water-Spoiled physico-chemical
propelties of soil, making it unfit for cultivation-Held : even though such
indust1ies were of vital impo1tance to count1y, they could not be pennitted to
continue their production unless pollution control devices were set up by,
them-Having regard to pollution caused by them, principle of Sustainable D
Development had to be accepted as a balancing concept--Precautiona1y
Principle and Polluter Pays P1inciple acceptable as part of environmental law
of country and should be implemented--Precautiona1y environmental
measures should be taken by State Govemment and statut01y authorities and
lack of scientific certainty could not be ground for postponing such measures
to prevent environmental degradati011~"0mts of proof' was on polluting E
industlies to show that their actions were environmentally benign-Such
polluting industlies liable to pay compensation for past pollution generated
by them-Pollution fine of Rs. JO, IJOO imposed on each tannery-Money to be
deposited in "Environment Protection Fund" to be utilised for compensating
affected persons and rest01ing damaged envilVnment. p
A1ticles 32 and 226-Public Interest Litigation-Environmental Pollu-
tion-Caused by ta111te1ies in State of Tamil Nadu-Comprehensive directions
issued by Supreme Cowt---However, instead of Supreme Cowt itself mo11ito1'
ing the matter any fwther, Madras High Court advised to constitute a "Green
Bench" to deal with all environmental matters in future-Such "Green G
Benches" already functioning in some High Courts.

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Section 3(3)-Authoiity-Central
Govemment directed to constitute Authority to be headed by a retired High
Court Judge-Authority to have all powers necessary to deal with situation
created by tanneries and polluting industries in State of Tamil H
241
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Nadu-Autlwrity to compute compensation payable by polluting industries to
affected individuals and that payable for restoring damaged environ-
ment-Authority also to frame scheme in consultation with expe1t bodies like
NEERJ, Central Board and State Board for reversing damage caused to
ecology and environment.

B Intemational Law :

Customa1y Intemational Law-Rules of -Held : if not contrmy to
Municipal Law, deemed to be incorporated in domestic Law.

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Petition under Article 32 of the
c Constitution against the pollution which was being caused by enormous
discharge of untreated effiuent by the tanneries and other industries in the
State of Tamil Nadu. The tanneries were discharging untreated ellluent
into agricultural fields, road-sides, waterways and open lands. The un-
treated effiuent was finally discharged in the river which was the main
D source of water supply to the residents of the areas. The entire surface and
sub-soil water of the river had been polluted resulting in non-availability
of potable water to the residents of the, area. The tanneries in the State of
Tamil Nadu had caused environmental degradation in the area. According
to the preliminary survey made by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Research Centre nearly 35, 000 hectares of agricultural land in the Tan-
E neries Belt, had become either parti:ally or totally unfit for cultivation. The
tanneries used about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome tanning proces-
ses. Nearly 35 litres of water was used for processing one kilogram of
finished leather, resulting in dangerously enormous quantities of toxic
effiuents being let out in the open by the tanning industry. These ellluents
F had spoiled the physico-chemical properties of the soil, and had con-
taminated ground water by percolation. An independent survey conducted
by Peace Members, a non-governmental organisation, covering 13 villages
of the State revealed that 350 wells out of a total of 467 used for drinking
and irrigation purposes had been polluted. Women and children have to
G walk miles to get drinking water.

The tanneries and other polluting industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu were being pursuaded for the last 10 years by the State Government
and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to control the pollution
generated by them. They were given option either to construct common
H effiuent treatment plants for a cluster of industries or to set up individual
VELLORECITIZENSWELFAREFORUMv. U.0.l. 243

pollution control devices. The Central Government agreed to give substan- A
tially subsidy for the construction of common effiuent treatment plants
(CETPs). However, till date most of the tanneries operating in the State
of Tamil Nadu had not taken any step to control the pollution caused by
tbe discharge of effiuent.

Disposing of the petition, this Court B

HELD: 1.1. Though the leather industry is of vital importance to tbe
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 C
with the present production unless it tackles by itself tbe problem of
pollution created by the said industry. [256-F-G)

1.2. The traditional concept that development and ecology are op-
posed to each other, is no longer acceptable. "Sustainable Development" is
the answer. "Sustainable Development" as a balancing concept between D
ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the Customary
International Law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by
the International Law Jurists. [256-H; 257-F)

2.1. "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays" principle
are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary E
Principle" - in the context of the municipal law-means :

(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the
statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation.
F
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack
of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
,.
(iii) The "Onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer/industrialist G
to show that his section is environmentally benign. [257-H; 258-A-C]

2.2. "The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound prin-
ciple by this Court. The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this
Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment ex-
tends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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. Apart from the constitutional
mandate to protect and improve the environment there are plenty of post
independence lei,rislations on the su~~ect. In view of the constitutional and
B statutory provisions it must be held that the Precautionary Principle and
Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environmental law of the country.
[258-F-G; 259-H; 260-A]
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. (1996)
2 196, relied on.
c
2.3. Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of the
Customary lntemational Law there would be no difficulty in accepting
them as part of the domestic law. The rules of Customary International
Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have
D been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed the Courts of
Law. [260-B]

Addi. Distt. Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR (1976) SC
1207; Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR (1980) SC 470 and
Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR
E (1984) SC 667, ri:Iied on.

3.1. The Constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person's
right to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment, but the
source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environ-
ment. Our legal system having been founded on the British Common Law
F the right of a person to pollution free environment is a part of the basic
jurisprudence of the land. [260-C-D; 261-B]

Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone Vol.
III, Chapter XIII, referred to.
G 3.2. The Environment (Prot1~ction) Act, 1986 contains useful
provisions for controlling pollution. The main purpose of the Act is to
create an authority or authorities under Section 3(3) of the. Act with ade-
quate power to control pollution and protect the environment. It is a pity
that till date no authority has been constituted by the Central Government.
H The work which is required to be done by an authority in terms of Section
[
VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.O.l. 245

3(3) read with other provisions of the Act is being done by this Court and A
other Courts in the country. It is high time that the Central Government
realised its responsibility and statutory duty to protect the degrading en-
vironment in the country. If the conditions in the five districts of Tamil
Nadu, where tanneries are operating, are permitted to continue then in the
near future all rivers/canals shall be polluted, underground waters con-
taminated, agricultural lands turned barren and the residents of the area
B
exposed to serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to
direct the Central Government to take immediate action under the
provisions of the Environment Act. [266-G-H; 267-A-B]

3.3. There are more than 900 tanneries operating in the five districts
of Tamil Nadu. Some of them may, by now, have installed the necessary
c
pollution control measures, they have been polluting the environment for
over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. This Court has
in various orders indicated that these tanneries are liable to pay pollution
fine. The polluters compensate the affected persons and also pay the cost
of restoring the damage ecology. [267-C-D] D
3.4. The State Pollution Control Board has the power under the
Environment Act and the Rules to lay down standards for emissions or
dischargf or environmental pollutants. Rule 3(2) of the Rules even permit
the Board to specify more stringent standards from those provided under
the Rules. The NEERI having justified the standards stipulated by the E
Board, it is directed that these standards are to be maintained by the
tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. [269-F-G]

4.1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under
Section 3(3) of the Act and shall confer on the said authority all the powers F
necessary to deal with the situation created by the Tanneries and other
polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Authority shall be
headed by a retired judge of the High Court. The authority shall compute
the compensation payable by the polluting industries to individuals af-
fected and that payable for restoring the damaged environment. The •
authority, in consultation with expert bodies like NEERI, Central Board G
and State Board, shall frame a scheme for reversing the damage caused to
the ecology and environment by pollution in the State of Tamil Nadu.
[269-H; 270-A-D; 271-D-E]
.2. An industry may have set up the necessary pollution control
device at present but it shall be liable to pay for the past pollution H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A generated by the said industry whkh has resulted in the environmental
degradation and suffering to the residents of the area. Accordingly, a
pollution fine of Rs. 10,000 each is imposed on all the tanneries in the five
districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. The money shall be deposited under
a separate head called "Environment Protection Fund" and shall be
utilised for compensating the affected persons and also for restoring the
B damaged environment. [270-H; 271-A-C]

5. Although this Court has issued comprehensive directions for
achieving the end result in the instant case, it is not necessary for this
Court to monitor these matters any further. Accordingly, the Madras High
c Court is advised to constitute a "Green Bench" to deal with all environ-
mental matters in future. Such "Green Benches" are already functioning in
some other High Courts. [272-D-F]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 914 of
1991.
D
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ·

R. Mohan, V.A. Bobde, Kapil Sibal, M.R. Sharma, V.C. Mahajan,
and S.S. Ray, K.R.R. Pillai, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seema Midha, V.G.
Pragasam, Vijay.Panjwani, S. Sukumaran, Sudhir Walia, A.T.M. Sampath,
E
M.S. Dahiya (Sudhir Walia), Roy Abraham for Sm. Baby Krishna, P.
Sukumar, Parveen Kumar, Romesh C. Pathak, M.A. Krishnamurthy, V.
Krishnamurthy, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Deepak Diwan,
S.M. Jadhav, A.V. Rangam, Zafarullah Khan, Shahid Rizvi, Shakil Ahmed
Syed, Jaideep Gupta and Sanjay Hedge for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. This petition - public interest - under Article 32
of the Constitution of India has be.en filed by Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum and is directed against the pollution which is being caused by
G enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other in-
. dustries in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is stated that the tanneries are
discharging untreated effluent into agricultural fields, road-sides, water-
ways and open lands. The untreated effluent is finally discharged in river
Palar which is the main source of water supply to the residents of the area.
H According to the petitioner the entire surface and sub-soil water of river
VELLORECITIZENS WELFAREFORUMv. V.O.I. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 247

Palar has been polluted resulting in non-availability of potable water to the A
residents of the area. It is stated that the tanneries in the State of Tamil
Nadu have caused environmental degradation in the area. According to the
preliminary survey made by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Re-
search Centre Vellore nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the
Tanneries Belt, has become either partially or totally unfit for cultivation.
B
It has been further stated in the petition that the tanneries used about 170
types of chemicals in the chrome tanning processes. The said chemicals
include sodium chloride, lime, sodium sulphate, chlorium sulphate, fat
liquor Amonia and sulphuric acid besides dyes which are used in large
quantities. Nearly 35 litres of water is used for processing one kilogram of
finished leather, resulting in dangerously enormous quantities of toxic C
effluents being let out in the open by the tanning industry. These effluents
have spoiled the physico-chemical properties of the soil, and have con-
taminated ground water by percolation. According to the petitioner an
independent survey conducted by Peace Members, a non-governmental
organisation, covering 13 villages of Dindigal and Peddiar Chatram D
Anchayat Unions, reveals that 350 well out of total of 467 used for drinking
and irrigation purposes have been polluted. Women and children have. to
walk miles to get drinking water. Legal Aid and Advice Board of Tamil
Nadu requested two lawyers namely, M.R. Ramanan and P.S. Sub-
ramanium to visit the area and submit a report indicating the extent of
pollution caused by the tanneries. Relevant part of the report is as under: E

"As per the Technical Report dated 28.5.1983 of the Hydrological
Investigations carried out in Solur village near Ambur it was
noticed that 176 chemicals including acids were contained in the
Tannery effluents. If 40 litres of water with chemicals are required F
for one Kilo of leather with the production of 200 tons of Leather
per day at present and likely to be increased multifold in the next
four to five years with the springing up of more tanneries like
mushroom in and around Ambur Town, the magnitude of the
effluent water used with chemical and acids let out daily can be
shockingly imagined ........ The effluents are let out from the tan- G
neries in the nearby lands, then to Goodar and Palar rivers. The
lands, the rivulet and the river receive the effluents containing toxic
chemicals and acids. The sub soil water is polluted ultimately
affecting not only arable lands, wells used for agriculture but also
drinking water wells. The entire Ambur Town and the villages H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A situated nearby do not have good drinking water. Some of the
influential and rich people are able to get drinking water from a
far off place connected by a few pipes. During rainy days and
floods, the chemicals deposited into the rivers and lands spread
out quickly to other lands, the effluents thus let out, affect cultiva-
tion, either crops do not come up at all or if produced the yield
B is reduced abnormally too low............. The Tanners have come to
stay. The industry is a Foreign Exchange Earner. But one moot
point is whether at the cost of the lives of lakhs of people with
increasing human population the activities of the tanneries should
be encouraged on monetary considerations. We find that the
c tanners have absolutely no regard for the healthy environment in
and around their tanneries. The effluents discharged have been
stored like a pond openly in the most of the places adjacent to
cultivable lands with easy access for the animals and the people.
The Ambur Municipality, which can exercise its powers as per the
provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act (1920) more
D
particularly under Sections 226 to 231, 249 to 253 and 338 to 342
seems to be a silent spectator probably it does not want to an-
tagomise the highly influential and stupendously rich tanners. The
powers given under Section 63 of the Water Prevention and Con-
trol of Pollution Act 1974 (6 of 1974) have not been exercised in
E the case of tanneries in Ambur and the surrounding areas."

Alongwith the affidavit dated July 21, 1992 filed by Deputy Secretary
to Government, Environment and Forest Department of Tamil Nadu, a list
of villages affected by the tanneries has been attached. The list mentions
59 villages in the three Divisions of Thirupathur, Vellore and Ranipath.
F
There is acute shortage of drinkin1~ water in these 59 villages and as such
alternative arrangements were being made by the Government for the
supply of drinking water.

In the affidavit dated January 9, 1992 filed by Member Secretary,
G Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (the Board), it has been stated as
under:

"It is submitted that there are 584 tanneries in North Arcot Am-
bedkar District vide annexure 'A' and 'D'. Out of which 443
H Tanneries have applied for consent of the Board. The Government 1
VELLORE CfTIZENS WELFAJrn FORUM v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 249

were concerned with the treatment and disposal of effluent from A
tanneries. The Government gave time upto 31.7.1985 to tanneries
to put up Effluent Treatment Plant (E.T.P.). So far 33 tanneries
in North Arcot Ambedkar District have put up Effluent Treatment
Plant. The Board has stipulated standards for the effluent to be
__, disposed by the tanneries."
B
The affidavits filed on behalf of State of Tamil Nadu and the Board
clearly indicate that the tanneries and other polluting industries in the State
of Tamil Nadu are being persuaded for the last about 10 years to control
the pollution generated by them. They were given option either to construct
common effluent treatment plants for a cluster of industries or to set up c
individual pollution control devices. The Central Government agreed to
give substantial subsidy for the construction of common effluent treatment
plants (CETPs). It is a pity that till date most of the tanneries operating in
the State of Tamil Nadu have not taken any step to control the pollution
caused by the discharge of effluent. This Court on May 1, 1995 passed a
D
detailed order. In the said order this Court noticed various earlier orders
passed by this Court and finally directed as under :

"Mr. R. Mohan, learned senior counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollu-
tion Control Board has placed before us a consolidated statement
dividing the 553 industries into three parts. The first part in E
Statement No. 1 and the second part in Statement No. 2 relate to
those tanneries who have set up the Effluent Treatment Plants
either individually or collectively to the satisfaction of the Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board. According to the report placed on
the record by the Board, these industries in Statements 1 and 2 F
have not achieved the standard or have not started functioning to
the satisfaction of the Board. So far as the industries in Statements
1 and 2 are concerned, we give them three months notice from
today to complete the setting up of Effluent Treatment Plant
(either individually or collectively) failing which they shall be liable
to pollution fine on the basis of their past working and also liable G
to be closed. We direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
,. to issue individual notices to all these industries within two weeks
from today. The Board is also directed to issue a general notice
on three consecutive days in a local newspaper which has circula-
tion in the District concerned. H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A . So fai as the 57 tanneries listed in Statement III (including 12
industries who have filed writ petition, Nos. of which have been
given above) are concerned, these units have not installed and
commissioned the Effluent Treatment Plants despite various or-
ders issued by this Court from time to time. Mr. R. Mohan, learned
senior counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
B states that the Board has issued separate notices to these units
directing them to set up the Effluent Treatment Plants. Keeping
in view the fact that this Court has been monitoring the matter for
the last about four years and various orders have been issued by
this Court from time to time, there is no justification to grant any
c further time to these industries. We, therefore, direct the 57
industries listed hereunder to be closed with immediate effect.
.......... We direct the District Collector and the Senior Superinten-
dent of Police of the District to have our orders complied with
immediately. Both these Officers shall file a report in this Court
within one week of the receipt of the order.
D
We give opportunity to these 57 industries to approach this
Court as and when any steps towards the setting up of Effluent
Treatment Plants and their commissioning have been taken by
these industries. If any of the industries wish to be re-located to
E some other area, they may come out with a proposal in that
respect."

On iuly 28, 1995 this Court suspended the closure order in respect
of seven industries mentioned therein for a period of eight weeks. It was
further observed as under :
F
"Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned senior advocate appearing for some
of the tanneries in Madias states that the setting up of the effluent
treatment plants is progressing satisfactorily. According to him
several lacs have already been spent and in a short time it would
G start operating. Mr. Mohan, learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board, states that the team of the Board will
inspect the project arid file a report by 3rd August, 1995".

This Court on September 8, 1995 passed the following order :

H· "The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed its report. List
VELLORECIT1ZENS WELFAREFORUMv. U.O.I. [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 251

No. 1 relates to about 299 industries. It is stated by Mr. G. A
Ramaswamy, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior
advocates appearing for these industries, that the setting up of the
projects is in progress. According to the learned counsel Tamil
Nadu Leather Development Corporation (TALCO) is in charge
of the project. The learned counsel state that the project shall be B
completed in every respect within 3 months from today. The details
of these industries and the projects undertaken by TALCO as per
list No. I is as under .................... We are of the view that it would
be in the interest of justice to give a little more time to these
industries to complete the project. Although the industries have
asked time for three months, we give them time till 31st December, C
1995. We make it clear that in case the projects are not completed
by that time, the industries shall be liable to be closed forthwith.
Apart from that, these industries shall also be liable to pollution
fine for the past period during which they had been operating.
D
We also take this opportunity to direct TALCO to take full
interest in these projects and have the projects completed within
the time granted by us.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the tanneries,
stated that Council for Indian Finished Leather manufactures E
Export Association is a body which is collecting 5% on all exports.
This body also helps the tanneries in various respect. We issue
notice to the Association to be present in this Court and assist this
Court in all the matters pertaining to the leather tanneries in
Madras. Mr. Sampath takes notice. p

So far as List No. II is concerned, it relates to about 163 .
tanneries (except M/s. Vibgyor Tanners & Co., Kailasagiri Road,
Mittalam 635 811, Ambur (via). The Pollution Control Board has
inspected all these tanneries and placed its report before us.
According to the report most of these tanneries have not even G
started P!imary work at the spot. Some of them have not even
located the land. The tanneries should have themselves set up the
pollution control devices right at the time when they started work-
ing. They have not done so. They are not even listening to various
orders passed by this Court from time to time during the last more H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A than 2 years. It is on the record that these tanneries are polluting
the area. Even the water around the area where they are operating
is not worth drinking. We give no further time to these tanneries.
We direct all th1! following tanneries which are numbering about
162 to be closed with immediate effect.

B It may be mentioned that this Court suspended the closure orders in
respect of various industries from time to time to enable the said industries
to install the pollution control devices.

This Court by the order dated October 20, 1995 directed the National
C Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEERI) to send
a team of experts to examine, in particular, the feasibility of setting up of
CETPs for cluster of tanneries situated at different places in the State of
Tamil Nadu where the work of setting up of the CETPs has not started
and also to inspect the existing CETPs including those where construction
D work was in progress. NEERI submitted its first report on December 9,
1995 and the second report on February 12, 1996. This Court examined the
two reports and passed the following order on April 9, 1996 :

"Pursuant to this Court's order dated December 15, 1995,
NEERI has submitted Final Examination Report dated February
E 12, 1996, regardiii1g CETPs constructed/under construction by the
Tanneries in various districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. A four
member team constituted by the Director, NEERI inspected the
CETPs from January 27 to February 12, 1996. According to the
report, at present 30 CETPs sites have been identified for tannery
F clusters in the five districts of Tamil Nadu viz., North Arcot
Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai
M.G.R. All the 30 CETPs were inspected by the Team. According
to the report, only 7 CETPs are under operation, while 10 are
under construction and 13 are proposed. The following 7 ETPs
are under operation :
G
1. M/s. TALCO Ranipet Tannery Effluent Treatment Co. Ltd.
Ranipet, Dist North_ Arcot Anlbedkar.
.,
2. M/s. TALCO Anlbur Tannery Effluent Treatment Co. Ltd.,
H Thuthipet Sector, Ambur Dist. North Arcot Ambedkar.
VELLORECrTIZENSWELFAREFORUMv. U.O.I.[KULDIPSINGH,J.] 253

3. M/s. TALCO Vaniyambadi Tanners Enviro Control Systems A
Ltd., Vaniyambattu, Vaniyambadi, Dt. North Arcot.

4. M/s. Pallavaram Tanners Industrial Effluent Treatment Co.,
Chrompet Area, Dist. Chengai MGR.

5. M/s. Ranipet SIDCO Finished Leather Effluent Treatment Co. B
Pvt. Ltd., Ranipet, Dist. North Arcot Ambedkar.

6. M/s. TALCO Vaniyambadi Tanners Enviro Control Systems
Ltd., Udayandiram, Vaniyambadi, Dist. North Arcot Ambedkar.

7. M/s. TALCO Pernambut Tannery Effluent Treatment Co. Ltd.,
c
Bakkalapalli, Pernambut, Dist. North Arcot Ambedkar.

The CETPs mentioned at SL Nos. 5, 6 & 7 were commissioned
in January, 1996 and were on the date of report passing through
stabilization period. The report Indicates that so far as the above D
CETPs are concerned, although there is improvement in the per-
formance, they are still not operating at their optimal level and are
not meeting the standards as laid down by the Ministry of Environ-
ment and Forests and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for
inland surface water discharge. The NEERI has given various
recommendations to be followed by the above mentioned units.
E
We direct the units to comply with the recommendations of
NEERI within two months from today. The Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board Shall monitor the directions and have the recom-
mendations of the NEERI Complied with. So far as the three units
which are under stabilization, the NEERI Team may inspect the F
same and place a final report before this Court within the period
of two months.

Apart from the tanneries which are connected with the above
mentioned 7 units, there are large number of other tanneries
operating in the 5 districts mentioned abo~e which have not set up G
any satisfactory pollution control devices. Mr. Mohan, learned
counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board states that
notices were issued to all those tanneries from time to time direct-
ing them to set up the necessary pollution control devices. It is
mandatory for the tanneries to set up the pollution control devices. H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Despite notices it has not been done. This Court has been monitor-
ing these matters for the last about 4 year. There is no awakening
or realisation to control the pollution which is being generated by
these tanneries.

The NEER! has indicated the physico-chemical characteristics
B of ground water from dug wells near tannery clusters. According
to the report, water samples show that well-waters around the
tanneries are unfit for drinking. The report also shows that the
quality of water in Palar river down stream from the place where
effluent is discharged, is highly polluted. We, therefore, direct that
c all the tanneries in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode
Periyar, Dindigu1 Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R. which are not
connected with the seven CETPs mentioned above, shall be closed
with immediate effect. None of these tanneries shall be permitted
to operate till the time the CETPs are constructed to the satisfac- .
tion of the Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board. We direct the
D District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the area
concerned, to have all these tanneries closed with immediate effect.
Mr. Mehta has placed on record the report of Tamil Nadu Pollu-
tion Control Board. In Statement I of the Index, there is a list of
30 industries which have also not been connected with any CETPs.
E According to the report, these industries have not, till date set up
pollution control devices. We direct the closure of these industries
also. List is as under .......... The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board has filed another report dated January 18, 1996 pertaining
to 51 Tanneries. There is dispute regarding the permissible limit
of the quantity of total dissolved solids, (TDS). Since the NEER!
F
team is visiting these tanneries, they may examine the TDS aspect
also and advise this Court accordingly. Meanwhile, we do not
propose to close any of the tannery on the ground that it is
discharging more than 2001 TDS.

G The report indicates that except the 17 units, all other units are
non-complaint units in the sense that they are not complying with
the BOD standards. Excepting these 17 industries, the remaining
34 tanneries listed hereunder are directed to be closed
forthwith ....... We direct the District Magistrate and the Superin-
H tendent of the police of the area concerned to have also these
VELLORECITIZENS WELFARE FORUMv. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 255

industries mentioned above close forthwith. The tanneries in the A
5 districts of Tamil Nadu referred to in this order have been
operating for a long time. Some of the tanneries are operating for
a period of more than two decades. All this period, these tanneries
have been polluting the area. Needles to say that the total environ-
ment in the.area has been polluted. We issue show cause notice
B
to these industries through their learned counsel who are present
in Court, why they be not subjected to heavy pollution fine. We
direct the State. of Tamil Nadu through the Industry Ministry, the
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and all other authorities
concerned and also the Government of India through the Ministry
of Environment and Forests, not to permit the setting up of further c
tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned
authorities within three days. To come up for further consideration
after the replies to the show cause. There are large number of D
tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu which have set up individual
pollution control devices and which according to the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board, are operating satisfactorily. The fact,
however, remains that all these tanneries are discharging the
treated effluents within the factory precinct itself. We direct
NEER! Team which is visiting this area to find out as to whether E
the discharge of the effluent on the land within the factory premises
is permissible environmentally. M/s. Nandeem Tanning Compa11y,
Valayampet Vaniyambadi is one of such industries. Copy of the
report submitted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board be
forwarded to the NEERL NEERI may inspect this industry within F
ten days and file a report in this Court. Copy of this order be
communicated to NEERL

Matters regarding Distillelies i11 the State of Tamil Nadu.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has placed on record G
the factual report regarding 6 Distilleries mentioned in page 4 of
the Index of its Report dated April 5, 1996. Learned counsel for
.the Board states that the Board shall issue necessary notices to
these industries to set up pollution .control devices to the satisfac-
tion of the Board, failing which these distilleries shall be closed. H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The Pollution Control Board shall place a status report before this
Court."

The NEERI submitted two further reports on May 1, 1996 and June 11,
1996 in respect of CETPs set up by various industries. The NEERI reports
indicate that the physico-chemical characteristics of ground water from dug
B wells in Ranipath, Thuthipath, Valayambattu, Vaniyambadi and various
other places do not conform to the limits prescribed for drinking purposes.

This Court has been monitoring this petition for almost five years.
The ~ERi, Board and the Central Pollution Control 'Board (Central
C Board) have visited the tanning and other industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu for several times. These expert bodies have offered all possible
assistance to these industries. The NEERI reports indicate that even the
seven operational CETPs are not functioning to its satisfaction. NEERI has
made several recommendations to be followed by the operational CETPs.
D Out of the 30 CETP-sites which have been identified for tannery clusters
in the five districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul
Anna, Thrichi and Chengai MGR. 7 are under operation 10 are under
construction and 13 are proposed. There are large number of tanneries
which are not likely to be connected with with any CETP and are required
to set up pollution control devices on their own. Despite repeated exten-
E sion granted by this Court during the last five yeas and prior to that by the
Board the tanneries !n the State of Tamil Nadu have miserably failed to
control the pollution generated by them.

It is no doubt correct that the leather industry in India has become
F a major foreign exchange earner and at present Tamil Nadu is the leading
exporter of finished leather accounting for approximately 80% of the
country's export. Though the leather industry is of vital importance to th.e
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
G with the present production unless it tackles by itself the problem of
pollution created by the said industry.

The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed
to each other, is no longer acceptable. "Sustainable Development" is the
H answer. In the International sphere "Sustainable Development" as a con-
VELLORE CfflZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 257

cept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of A
1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the
World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called
"Our Common Future''. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime
Minister of Norway Ms. G.N. Brundtland and as such the report is popular-
ly known as "Brundtland Report". In 1991 the World Conservation Union, B
United Nations Environment Programme and World Wide Fund for Na-.
ture, jointly came out with a document called "Caring for the Earth" which
is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth Summit held in
June, 1992 at Rio which saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever in
the history - deliberating and chalking out a blue pring for the survival of C
the planet. Among the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was
the signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity and another on
climate change. These conventions were signed by 153 nations. The
delegates also approved by consensus three non binding documents name-
ly, a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on
environmental policy and development initiatives and Agenda 21, a D
programme of action into the next century in areas like poverty, population
and pollution. During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable
Development" has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate
poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the
carrying capacity of the supporting eco-systems. "Sustainable Development" E
as defined by the Brundtland Report means "development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future genera-
tions to meet their won needs". We have no hesitation in holding that
"Sustainable Development' as a balancing concept between ecology and
development has been a~cepted as a part of the Customary International p
Law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the International
Lawjurists.

Some of the salient principles of "Sustainable Development", as
culled-out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are
Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, G
Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays prin-
ciple, Obligation to assist and cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and
Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the
view that "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays" principle
are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Principle" - in the context of the municipal law - means :
(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the
statutory authorities • must anticipate, prevent and attack the
causes of environmental degradation.

B (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage,
lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(iii) The "Onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer/in-
duf,trialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.
c
"The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle
by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro - Legal Action v. Union of India,
J.T. (1996) 2 196. The Court observed, "We are of the opinion that any
principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to
0 the conditions obtaining in this country". The Court ruled that "Once the
activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carry-
ing on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other
person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable
care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very
E nature of the acfr<ity carried on". Consequently the polluting industries are
"absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers
in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence,
they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other
pollutants lying in the ..affected areas". The "Polluter Pays" principle as
interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the
F 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 Develop-
ment" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual
sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
G The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have
been accepted as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution
of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. Article 47, 48A
and 51A(g) of the Constitutional are as under :

H "47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the
VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 259

standard of living and to improve public health. - The State shall A
regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living
of its people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring
about prohibition of the consumption except from medicinal pur-
poses of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to
B
health.

48A Protection and improvement of environment and safeguard-
ing of forests and wild life. - The State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country. C
51A(g). To protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes. rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures."

Apart from the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environ- D
ment there are plenty of post independence legislations on the subject but
more relevant enactments for our purpose are : The Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act), The Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment
Protection Act 1986 (the Environment Act). The Water Act provides for E
the constitution of the Central Pollution Control Board by the Central
Government and the constitution of the State Pollution Control Boards by
various State Governments in the country. The Boards function under the
control of the Governments concerned. The Water Act prohibits the use
of streams and wells for disposal of polluting matters. Also provides for
restrictions on outlets and discharge of effluents without obtaining consent F
from the Board. Prosecution and penalties have been provided which
include sentence of imprisonment. The Air Act provides that the Central
Poll.ution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards con-
stituted under the Water Act shall also perform the powers and functions
under the Air Act. The main function of the Boards, under the Air Act, is G
to improve the quality of the air and to prevent, control and abate air
pollution in the country. We shall deal with the Environment Act in the
later part of this judgment.

In view of the above mentioned constitutional and statutory
provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A and the pollut1~r pays principle 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 difficulty in accepting
them as part of the domestic law. It is almost accepted proposition of law
B that the rule of Customary International Law which are not contrary to the
municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic
law and shall be followed by the Courts of Law. To support we may refer
to Justice H.R. Khanna's opinion in Addi. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v.
Shivakant Shukla, AIR (1976) SC 1207, Jolly George Varghese's case AIR
c (1980) SC 470 and Gramophone Company's case AIR (1984) SC 667.

The Constitutional and statutory provisions protect a persons right
to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment, but the source
of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment.
D It would be useful to quote a paragraph from Blackstone's commen-
taries on the Laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of England
of Sir William Blackstone) Vol. III, fourth edition published in 1876.
Chapter XIII, "Of Nuisance" depicts the law on the subject in the
following words :

E "Also , if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, 'or
allows filth to accumulate on his premises, so near the house of
another, that the stench incommodes him and makes the air
unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive
him of the use and benefit of this house. A like injury is, if one's
F neighbour sets up and exercises any offensive trade; as a tanner's,
a tallow-chandler's or the like; for though these are lawful and
necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in remote places;
for the rule is, sic utere "tuo, ut alienum non laedas;" this therefore
is an actionable nuisance. 'And on a similar principle a constant
ringing of bells in one's inimediate neighbourhood may be a
G nuisance ................ With regard to other corporeal heriditaments ;
it is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another's
meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a water-course, by erecting
a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the use of trade, in the upper part
of the stream; 'to pollute a pond, from which another is entitled
H to water his cattle; to obstruct a drain; or in short to do any act in
VELLORECITIZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 261

common property, that in its consequences must necessarily tend A
to the prejudice of one's neighbour. So closely does the law of
England enforce that excellent rule of gospel-morality, of "doing
to others, as we would they should do upto ourselves."

Our legal system having been founded on the British Common Law
the right of a person to pollution free environment is a part of the basic
B
jurisprudence of the land.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Environment Act, inter
alia, states as under :
c
"The decline in environmental quality has been evidenced by in-
creasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity,
excessive concentrations of harmful chemicals in the ambient at-
mosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental
accidents and threats to life support systems. The world D
community's resolve to protect and enhance the environmental
quality found expression in the decisions taken at the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stock-
holm in June, 1972. Government of India participated in the
Conference and strongly voiced the environmental concerns. While
several measures have been taken for environmental protection E
both before and after the Conference, the need for a general
legislation further to implement the decisions of the Conference
has become increasingly evident.. .................... Existing laws general-
ly focus on specific types of pollution or on specific categories of
hazardous substances. Some major areas of environmental hazard- F
ous are not covered. There also exist uncovered gaps in areas of
major environmental hazards. There are inadequate linkages in
handing matters of industrial and environmental safety. Control
mechanisms to guard against slow, insidious build up of hazardous
substances, especially new chemicals, in the environment are weak.
Because of a multiplicity of regulatory agencies, there is need for G
_an authority which can assume the lead role for studying, planning
and implementing long-term requirement of environmental safety
and to give direction to, and co-ordinate a system of speedy and
adequate response to emergency situations threatening the en-
vironment... .................. In view of what has been stated above, there H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A is urgent need for the enactment of a general legislation on en-
vironmental protection which inter alia, should enable co-ordina-
tion of activities of the various regulatory agencies, creation of an
authority or authorities with adequate powers for environmental
protection, regulation of discharge of environmental pollutants and
handling of hazardous substances, speedy response in the event of
B accidents threatening environment and <leterent punishment to
those who endanger human environment, safety and health".

Sections 3, 4 5, 7 and 8 of the Environment Act which are relevant are as
under:
c "3. Power of Central Government to take measures to protect and
improve environment. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,
the Central Government shall have the power to take all such
measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of
protecting and improving the quantity of the environment and
D preventing controlling and abating environmental pollution.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of section (1), such measures may include measures with
respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:

E (i) co-ordination of actions by the State Governments, officers and
other authorities -

(a) under this Act, or the rules made thereunder, or

(b) under any other law for the time being in force which is
F relatable to the objects of this Act;

(ii) planning and execution of a nation-wide programme for the
prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution;

G (iii) laying down standards for the quality of environment in its
various aspects;

(iv) laying down standards for emission or discharge of environ-
mental pollutants from various sources whatsoever :

H Provided that different standards for emission or discharge may
VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 263

be laid down under this clause from different sources having regard A
to the quality or composition of the emission or discharge of
environmental pollutants from such sources;

(v) restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or
processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not
be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards; B

(vi) laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of
accidents which may cause environmental pollution and remedial
measures for such accidents;

(vii) laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of
c
hazardous substances;

(viii) examination of such manufacturing processes, materials and
substances as are likely to cause environmental pollution;
D
(ix) carrying out and sponsoring investigations and research relat-
ing to problems of environmental pollution;

(x) inspection of any premises, plant, equipment, machinery,
manufacturing or other processes, materials or substances and
giving, by order, of such directions to such authorities, officers or
E
persons as it may consider necessary to take steps for the preven-
tion, control and abatement of environmental pollution;

(xi) establishment or recognition of environmental laboratories and
institutes to carry out the functions entrusted to such environmen- F
tal laboratories and institutes under this Act;

(xii) collection and dissemination of information in respect of
matters relating to environmental pollution;

(xiii) preparation of manuals, codes or guides relating to the G
prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution;

(xiv) such other matters as the Central Government deems neces-
sary or expedient for the purpose of securing the effective im-
plementation of the provisions of this Act. H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (3) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or
expedient so to do for the purposes of this Act, by order, published
in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or authorities by
such name or names as may be specified in the order for the
pmpose of ·exercising and performing such of the powers and
B functions (including the power to issue directions under section 5)
of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures
with respect such of foe matters referred to in sub-section (2) as
may be mentioned in the order and subject to the supervision and
control of the Central Government and the provisions of such
c order, such authority or authorities may exercise the powers or
perform the functions or take the measures so mentioned in the
order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by
this Act to exercise those powers or perform those functions or
take such measures.

D
4. Appointment of officers and their powers and functions (1)
Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section
3, the Central Government may appoint officers with such desig-
nations as it thinks fit for the purposes of this Act and may entrust
to them such of the powers and functions under this Act as it may
E
deem fit. (2) The officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall be
subject to the general control and direction of the Central Govern-
ment or, if so directed by that Government, also of the authority
or authorities, if any, constituted under sub-section (3) of section
3 or of any other authority or officer".
F
5. Power to give directions. - Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law but subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Central Government may, in the exercise of its power and perfor-
mance of its functions under this Act, issue directions in writing
G to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or
authority shall be bound to comply with such directions.

Explanation. - for the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared
that the power to issue directions under this section includes the
H power to direct -
VELLORECITIZENS WELFAREFORUMv. U.O.l. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 265

(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation A
or process; or

(b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or
any other service.

7. Persons carrying on industry, operation etc., not to allow emis- B
sion or discharge of environmental pollutants in excess of the
standards. - No person carrying on any industry, operation or
process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or
emitted any environmental pollutant in excess of such standards
·~~~~~ c
8. Persons handling hazardous substances to comply with proce-
dural safeguards. - No person shall handle or cause to be handled
any hazardous substance except in accordance with such proce-
dure and after complying with such safeguards as may be
prescribed". D
Rule 3(1), 3(2), and 5(1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986
(the Rules) are as under :

"3. Standards for emission or discharge of environmental pol-
lutants. - (1) For the purposes of protecting and improving the E
quality of the environment and preventing and abating environ-
mental pollution the standards for emission or discharge of en-
vironmental pollutants from the industries, operations or processes
shall be as specified in (Schedule I to IV).

3.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the F
Central Board or a State Board may specify more stringent stand-
ards from those provided in (Schedule I to IV) in respect of any
specific industry, operation or process depending upon the quality
of the recipient system and after recording reasons, therefore, in
~~ G
5. Prohibition and restriction on the location of industries and the
carrying on processes and operations in different areas - (1) The
Central Government may take into consideration the following
factors while prohibiting or restricting the location of industries
and carrying on of processes and operations in different areas : H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (i) Standards for quality of environment in its various aspect laid
down for an area.

(ii) The maximum allowable limits of conc1.0ntration of various
environment pollutants (including noise) for an area.

B (iii) The likely emissiion or discharge of environmental pollutants
from an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited
or restricted.

(iv) The topographic and climatic features of an area.

c (v) The biological diversity of the area which, in the opinion of the
Central Government,, needs to be preserved.

(vi) Environmentally compatible land use.

(vii) Net adverse environmental impact likely t'l be caused by an
D
industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or
restricted.

(viii) Proximity to a protected area under the Ancient Monuments
and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 or a sanctuary,
E National Park, game reserve or closed area notified, as such under
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, or places protected under
any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or
countries or in pursuance of any decision made in any international
conference, association or other body.

F (ix) Proximity to human settlements.

(x) Any other factors as may be considered by the Central Govern-
ment to be relevant to the protection of the environment in an
area".
G It is thus obvious that the Environment Act contains useful provisions
for controlling pollution. The main purpose of the Act is to create an
authority or authorities under Section 3(3) of the Act with adequate powers
to control pollution and protect the environment. It is a pity that till date
no authority has been constituted by the Central Government. The work
H which is required to be done by an authority in terms of Section 3(3) read
VELLORE CffiZENS WELFARE FORUM v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 267

with other provisions of the Act is being done by this Court and the other A
Courts in the country. It is high time that the Central Government realises
its responsibility and statutory duty to protect the degrading environment
in the country. If the conditions in the five districts of Tamil Nadu, where
tanneries are operating, are permitted to continue then in the near future
all rivers/canals shall be polluted, underground waters contaminated,
B
agricultural lands turned barren and the residents of the area exposed to
serious diseases. It is, therefore, necessary for this Court to direct the
Central Government to take immediate action under the provisions of the
Environment Act.

There are more than 900 tanneries operating in the five districts of C
Tamil Nadu. Some of them may, by now, have installed the necessary
pollution control measures, they have been polluting the environment for
over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. This Court has
in various orders indicated that these tanneries are liable to pay pollution
fine. The polluters must compensate the affected persons and also pay the D
cost of restoring the damaged ecology.

Mr. M.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our
attention to the Notification GOMs No. 213 dated March 30, 1989 which
reads as under :
E
"Order:

In the Government Order first read above, the Government have
ordered, among other things, that no industry causing serious water
pollution should be permitted within one kilometre from the em- F
bankments of rivers, streams, dams etc. and that the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board should furnish a list of such industries to
all local bodies. It has been suggested that it is necessary to have
a sharper definition for water sources so that ephemeral water
collections like rain water ponds, drains, sewerages (bio·· G
degradable) etc. may be excluded from the purview of the above
order. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ha~
stated that the scope of the Government Order may be restricted
to reservoirs, rivers and public drinking water sources. He has also
slated that there should be a complete ban on location of highly
polluting industries within 1 Kilometre of certain water sources. H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996]SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 2. The Government have carefully examined the above suggestions.
The Government impose a total ban on the setting up of the highly
polluting industries mentioned in Annexure - I to this order within
one Kilometre from the embankments of the water sources men-
tioned in Annexure-II to this order.

B 3. The Government also direct that under any circumstance if any
highly polluting industry is proposed to be set up within one
kilometre from the embankments of water sources other than those
mentioned in Annexure-II to this order, the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board should examine the case and obtain the approval
c of the Government for it".

Annexure-l to the notification includes Distilleries, tanneries, fertilizer,
steel plants and foundries as the highly polluting industries. We have our
doubts whether the above quoted government order is being enforced by
the Tamil Nadu Government. The order has been issued to cc:itrol pollu-
D tion and protect the environment. We are of the view that the order should
be strictly enforced and no industry listed in Annexure-1 to the order
should be permitted to be set up in the prohibited area.

Learned counsel for the tanneries raised an objection that the
standard regarding total dissolved solids (TDS) fixed by the Board was
E
not justified. This Court by the order dated April 9, 1996 directed the
NEERI to examine this aspect and give its opinion. In its report dated
June 11, 1996 NEERI has justified the standards stipulated by the Board.
The reasoning of the NEERI given in its report dated June 11, 1996 is as
under:
F
"The total dissolved solids in ambient water have phisiological,
industrial and economic significance. The consumer acceptance of
mineralized water decreases in direct proportion to increased
mineralization as indicated by Bruvold (1). High Total dissolved
solids (TDS), including chlorides and sulphates, are objectionable
G due to possible physiological effects and mineral taste that they
impart to water. High lev~ls of total dissolved solids produce
laxative/cathartic/purgative effect in consumers. The requirement
of soap and other detergents in household and industry is directly
related to water hardness as brought out by Deboer and Larson
H (2). High concentration of mineral salts, particularly sulphates and
VELLORE cmZENS WELFARE FORUM V. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 269

chlorides, are also associated with costly corrosion damage in A
wastewater treatment systems, as detailed by Patterson and Banker
(3). Of particular importance is the tendency of scale deposits with
high TDS thereby resulting in high fuel consumption in boilers.

The Ministry of Environment and forests (MEF) has not
categorically laid down standards for inland surface water dis- B
charge for total dissolved solids (TDS), sulphates and chlorides.
The decision on these standards rests with the respective State
Pollution Control Boards as per the requirements based on local
site conditions. The standards stipulated by the TNPCB are jus-
tified on the aforereffered considerations. c
The prescribed standards of the TNPCB for inland surface
water discharge can be met for tannery wastewaters cost- effec-
tively through proper implant control measures in tanning opera-
tion, and rationally designed and effectively operated wastewater
treatment plants {ETPs & CETPs). Tables 3 and 5 depict the D
quality of groundwater in some areas around tanneries during peak
summer period (June 3-5, 1996). Table 8 presents the date col-
lected by TNPCB at individual ETPs indicating that TDS, sul-
phates and chlorides concentrations are below the prescribed
standards for inland surface water discharge. The quality of am- E
bient waters needs to be maintained through the standards stipu-
lated by TNPCB."

The Board has the power under the Environment Act and the Rules
to lay down standards for emissions or discharge of environmental pol-
lutants. Rule 3(2) of the Rules even permit the Board to specify more F
stringent standards from those provided under the Rules. The NEERI
having justified the standards stipulated by the Board, we direct that these
standards are to be maintained by the tanneries and other industries in the
State of Tamil Nadu.

Keeping in view the scenario discussed by us in this judgment, we
G
order and direct as under :

1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Sec-
tion 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on
the said authority all the powers necessary to deal with the situation created H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A by the tanneries and other polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Authority shall be headed by a retired judge of the High Court and it
may have other members • preferably with expertise in the field of pollution
control and environment protection • to be appointed by the Central
Government. The Central Government shall confer on the said authority
B the powers to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment Act and
for taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in Clauses (v),
(vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) and (xii) of sub-Section (2) of Section 3. The Central
Government shall constitute the authority before September 30, 1996. ·

2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall
C implement the "precautionary principle" and the "polluter·pays" principle.
The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving
opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/en-
vironment in the affected areas and shall also identify the in-
dividuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall
D assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The
authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from
the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority
shall lay down just and fair prncedure for completing the exercise.

E 3. The authority shall compute the compensation under two heads
namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals. A state-
ment showing the total amount to be recovered, the names of the polluters
from whom the amount is to be recovered, the amount to be recovered
from each polluter, the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid
and the amount payable to each of them shall be forwarded to the Collec-
F tor/District Magistrate of the area concerned. The Collector/District
Magistrate shall recover the amount from the polluters, if necessary, as
arrears of land revenue. He shall disburse the compensation awarded by
the authority to the affected persons/families.

G 4. The authority shall direct the closure of the industry owned/
managed by a polluter in case he evades or refuse to pay the compensation
[
awarded against him. This shall be in addition to the recovery from him as
arrears of land revenue.

H 5. An industry may have set up the necessary pollution control device
VELLORECffiZENS WELFARE FORUMv. U.O.L [KULDIP SINGH,J.) 271

at present but it shall be liable to pay for the past pollution generated by A
the said industry which has resulted in the environmental degradation and
suffering to the residents of the area.

6. We impose pollution fine of Rs. 10,000 each on all the tanneries
in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode periyar, Dindigul Anna,
Trichi and Chengai M.G.R. The fine shall be paid before October 31, 1996 B
in the office of the Collector/District Magistrate concerned. We direct the
Collectors/District Magistrates of these districts to recover the fines from
the tanneries. The money shall be deposited, alongwith the compensation
amount recovered from the polluters, under a separate head called "En-
vironment protection Fund" and shall be utilised for compensating the C
affected persons as identified by the authorities and also for restoring the
damaged environment. The pollution fine is liable to be recovered as
arrears of land revenue. The tanneries which fail to deposit the amount by
October 31, 1996 shall be closed forthwith and shall also be liable under
the Contempt of Courts Act.
D
7. The authority, it consultation with expert bodies like NEER!,
Central Board, Board shall frame scheme/schemes for reversing the
damage caused to the ecology and environment by pollution in the State
of Tamil Nadu. The scheme/schemes so framed shall be executed by the
State Government under the supervision of the Central Government. The E
expenditure shall be met from the "Environment Protection fund" and from
other sources provided by the State Government and the Central Govern-
ment.

8. We suspend the closure orders in respect of all the tanneries in
the five districts of North Arcot Ambedkar, Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, F
Trichi and Chengai M.G.R. We direct all the tanneries in the above five
districts to set up CETPs or Individual Pollution Control Devices on or
before November 30, 1996. Those connected with CETPs shall have to
install in addition the primary devices in the tanneries. All the tanneries in
the above five districts shall obtain the consent of the Board to function G
and operate with effect from December 15, 1996. The tanneries who are
refused consent or who fail to obtain the consent of the Board by Decem-
ber 15, 1996 shall be closed forthwith.

9. We direct the Superintendent of Police and the Collector/District
Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned to close all H
2n SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A those tanneries with immediate effect who fail to obtain the consent from
the Board by the said date. Such tanneries shall not be reopened unless
the authority permits them to do so. It would be open to the authority to
close such tanneries permanently or to direct their relocation.

10. The Government Order No. 213 dated March 30, 1989 shall be
B enforced forthwith. No new industry listed in Annexure-1 to the Notifica-
tion shall be permitted to be set up within the prohibited area. The
authority shall review the cases of all the industries which are already
operating in the prohibited area and it would be open to authority to direct
the relocatiion of any of such industries.
c 11. The standards stipulated by the Board regarding total dissolved
solids (TDS) and approved by the NEERI shall be operative. All the
tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu shall comply with
the said standards. The quality of ambient waters has to be maintained
through the standards stipulated by the Board.
D
We have issued comprehensive directions for achieving the end result
in this case. It is not necessary for this Court to monitor these matters any
further. We are of the view that the Madras High Court would be in a
better position to monitor these matters hereinafter. We, therefore, request
the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to constitute a special Bench
E
"Green Bench" to deal with this case and other environmental matters. We
make it clear that it would be open to the Bench to pass any appropriate
order/orders keeping in view the directions issued by us. We may mention
that "Green Benches" are already functioning in Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh
and some other High Courts. We direct the Registry of this Court to send
F the records to the registry of the Madras High Court within one week. The
High Court shall treat this matter as a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and deal with it in accordance with law and also in
terms of the directions issued by us. We give liberty to the parties to
approach the High Court as and when necessary.
G Mr. M.C. Mehta has been assisting this Court to our utmost satisfac-
tion. We place on record our appreciation for Mr. Mehta. We direct the
State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs. 50,000 towards legal fees and other out of
pocket expenses incurred by Mr. Mehta.

H v.s.s. Petition disposed of.