VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA (1996)

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2715

PETITIONER: VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 28, 1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN, K. VENKATASWAMI

INTRODUCTION

Ecological protection takes precedence over any financial advantage realized by any company in modern society. The environment refers to everything that surrounds us, it is like a complex web, a dynamic space where natural and human-made elements like air, water, land, plants, animals, human-made structures, and social systems coexist, constantly interacting and evolving to sustain life and growth.

The leading case of “Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India”[1]is a direct precedent for an optimistic outlook toward environmental protection laws in India. Thus, upholding the importance of environmental ethics in Indian philosophy. The comprehensive analysis of the case encompasses the environmental issues and the related legal aspects. It introduces two major principles to Indian environmental jurisprudence, the “Polluter pays principle” and “Precautionary principle”. Additionally, it explores the impact of development on promoting stability while enhancing economic benefits and environmental sustainability.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The writ petition as a PIL was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in which the appeal[2] was presented to the Supreme Court to address severe environmental damage caused by industrial pollution. The petition was a response to the alarming levels of untreated waste being discharged by more than 900 tanneries and other factories in Tamil Nadu. This waste was contaminating the River Palar which was the prime source of potable water for people in the region, and spreading across cultivated lands, roads, and open fields. The pollution not only caused severe damage to the environment but also took a huge economic and ecological toll on Vellore.

A research conducted by the ‘Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre’ discovered around 35,000 hectares of farmland in the tannery region being no longer suitable for cultivation due to exposure to over 170 harmful chemicals released by the industries. This case was one of the first groundbreaking judgements where the Apex Court recognized and realized the interlink between rampant industrial growth and environmental protection. It highlighted how industrial activities can severely impact both the environment and livelihood of local communities, setting a crucial precedent for future environmental cases in India.

KEY ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Indian laws hold any stance for sustainable development through principles such as the ‘polluter-based principle’ and ‘precautionary principle’ which are fundamentals of public health and industrial growth?
2. To what extent will future economic development compromise on environmental safety?
3. Should tanneries be permitted to continue operating if it entails jeopardizing the lives of thousands of people in this country and causing irreparable damage to the environment? 

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

In the “Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India case (1996)”[3], the Apex Court of India significantly reinforced environmental protection through a combination of constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and international environmental principles.

1. Constitutional Mandates: The Court referenced Articles 21 (right to life encompassing a right to a healthy environment and basic human safety), 47 (state’s responsibility to improve health), 48-A (obligation of the state to preserve and safeguard the environment), and 51-A(g) (essential obligation of citizens to protect the environment) to emphasize the right to a healthy environment is integral to the essence of life.
2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This comprehensive legislation prepared a framework for the conservation and enhancement of the ecology in India. It entitles the Union Government and State Pollution Control Boards to set standards, control emissions, and enforce pollution control measures across various industries.

The Court invoked Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of this Act, which empower the government to control environmental pollutants and enforce strict pollution control measures, signaling the state’s role in ensuring compliance with environmental standards.

• Section 3: As per this section the government is authorized to take actions to safeguard and preserve the environment. The Court used this to emphasize the government’s responsibility to control pollution from tanneries.
• Section 4: Allows the government to issue directions for compliance. The Court directed the government to enforce pollution control measures on the tanneries.
• Section 5: Enables the government to close or regulate polluting industries. The Court considered closing tanneries or requiring them to install effluent treatment plants.
• Section 7: Provides penalties for violating environmental laws. The Court stressed penalties for industries that failed to comply with pollution control standards.
• Section 8: Allows delegation of powers to local authorities for enforcement. The Court suggested empowering local bodies to monitor and enforce environmental protection measures.

4. Implementation and Enforcement: Given the failure of existing mechanisms to enforce environmental laws, the Court directed the establishment of an authority empowered to oversee pollution control, ensure compliance, and facilitate compensation for harm caused by pollution.

The Court established a comprehensive framework to tackle pollution and promote sustainable development by combining constitutional rights, statutory duties, and international environmental principles.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

By the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel of the petitioner argued the discharge of effluvium, originating from the hide tanning facilities, which befouled the entire surface of the Palar River, thus rendering it arduous for the inhabitants to access potable water. They further contended that the pollutants from the leather industries in the State of Tamil Nadu have contributed to the area’s environmental degradation.

A non-government agency conducted research encompassing 13 municipalities in the Dindigul and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Unions, identifying 350  polluted streams out of the 467 streams designated for drinking and irrigation —the permeation contaminated groundwater which resulted in a severe water shortage.

‘The Legal Aid and Advice Board’ of Tamil Nadu called for the Petitioner to present another survey report, from Solur village in which 176 compounds were discovered, to have significantly high levels of pollutants consisting of tannery effluents. To process one kilogram of finished leather, approximately 35 liters of potentially potable water was contaminated, thereby polluting the environment, including cultivated lands and waterways.

Furthermore, an inquiry conducted by the ‘Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Research Centre’ declared that roughly about 35,000 acres of farmland were reported to have declined agricultural productivity, whereas some areas were compromised completely.

The Learned Counsel also contended that despite the efforts put in by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the Central administration coaxing the leather industries for about a decade to establish Common Effluent Treatment Plants, most of them continued running without any treatment plants, despite the Central administration offering assistance for installing them.

By the Respondent:

“The Learned Counsel argued that the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) quality limits were unreasonable. On April 9, 1996, an investigation conducted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in conjunction with the Court reported the standards set by the Board were justifiable.”[4]

Since there are no guidelines in place for regulating the release of TDS in surface water therefore the pollution control authorities of each state should make decisions based on the conditions of each local site.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was a landmark judgment in environmental law. While disposing of the petition, it was remarked that although the leather industry plays a crucial role in the country’s growth in the foreign exchange market and career opportunities, it cannot justify the destruction of ecology and human health. The tanneries and other industries cannot be given the license to expand and continue the present production unless they tackle the problem of pollution it is creating by itself.^[5]

An authority was established by the Central Government under “Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986”[6]as directed by the Court, entrusted with the necessary authority to respond to and settle issues relating to polluting leather industries in Tamil Nadu. Strict mandates were imposed on the authorities to implement the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays” principle. It was also delegated the power of dividing and distributing the compensation between the affected families and reversing the ecosystem. Additionally, a fine of₹10,000 was imposed on each of the tanneries for the destruction caused to the environment.

The establishment of common treatment facilities was mandated and non-compliance of any of the tanneries with these guidelines was to be immediately shut down. The Court asserted that the TDS guidelines were in effect and all industries must comply with them. A special ‘Green Bench’ was formed for the implementation of the Court’s orders.^[7]

The Court affirmed the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ as a balance between industrial development and ecology, which were traditionally viewed as conflicting to each other, has now been acknowledged as a principle of Customary International Law. The “Precautionary” and the “Polluter Pays” principles were upheld as fundamental components included among the essential features of sustainable development.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Precedents Cited —

The Apex Court referenced several key precedents to substantiate its ruling:

• “Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)”[8]: This case corroborated the Court’s disposition on the absolute liability of polluting industries, establishing that such entities must compensate for degrading the environment irrespective of intent or negligence.
• “Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (1980)[9] and Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. B.B. Pandey (1984)”[10]: These cases further reaffirmed that India must respect the incorporation of international environmental principles into Indian law and realize its environmental responsibilities.
• “M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case)”[11]: this case established the “Absolute Liability Principle” for industries engaging in hazardous activities endangering the life of residents and polluting the environment.
• “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 (Principles 15 and 16)”[12]:Cited as an international environmental law framework it upheld the two principles- the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle.”
• “A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999)”[13]:Though this case came later, it followed the Vellore case ruling in reinforcing the Precautionary Principle in environmental protection cases.

These precedents collectively emphasized the judiciary’s role in enforcing environmental laws and integrating international environmental principles into national jurisprudence.

“Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India”[14]holds great significance in India and its decision has been one of the landmark judgments concerning environmental protection. The “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays” were incorporated into the Indian Law, thereby stressing the importance of the rights of its citizens to have a pollution-free environment. Even though these two principles brought many improvements and developments in environmental protection, there are shortcomings in the ways these are adopted and enforced.

Now we look into the two principles that sustainable development talks of – The “Polluter Pays Principle” propounded that the polluting industries shall be accountable for the costs of managing pollution, preventing environmental degradation and threat to human lives. These industries are also legally obligated to provide redress for the harm caused to the people affected including the expense of reversing the degraded environment in the affected areas, subsoil, and water.

The Precautionary Principle refers to governmental actions to predict, impede, and mitigate the causesof degradation of the environment. The absence of any scientific reliability is not justifiable for delaying protective steps to safeguard the ecology from threats of serious irreversible damage to the environment.

The Apex Court to determine the contention between environment conservation and industrial growth took an approach towards sustainability to settle this matter, though it provided no conclusive directives on how this conception would achieve stability between the two aspects to accomplish the goal. Many companies have also incorporated CSR activities to achieve sustainable development and contribute to the environment.

The Court had directed the tanneries and other industries to shut down and install common treatment facilities but even today it is a primary concern whether the implementation of the same has been done or not. It is the responsibility of the government to take the initiative to look into this matter otherwise this landmark judgment will be rendered unfruitful.

“Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986constitutes the powers of the Central Government to take necessary actions to conserve the environment —

The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for 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 to exercise and perform such of the powers and functions (including the power to issue directions under section 5) of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures concerning such of the matters referred to in subsection (2) as may be mentioned in the order and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such 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.”^[15]

The major objective of the Act is to empower the Courts to regulate pollution and safeguard the ecology. Unfortunately, no regulatory board has yet been established by the Union Government to accomplish this objective. The authority conferred upon an expert for this task under Section 3(3), is being exercised by the Apex Court as well as other Courts across the country.

The government has already missed its opportunity to fulfill its statutory obligation and responsibility to preserve the country’s deteriorating environment. If the tanneries and other polluting industries in the five regions of Tamil Nadu are still permitted to operate , consequently all inland waterways will be contaminated, the residents of the region will be exposed to extreme levels of pollution and the region will be left barren, and bleak. Therefore, the Central Government must be directed to act swiftly as per the requirements of the Act.^[16]

Environment protection and human rights are often viewed as distinct subjects but there are many circumstances where the two field imbricate. Firstly, many countries have enacted legislations recognizing the right of citizens to live in a clean and pollution free environment. Secondly, the conjunction of environmental and resource management strategies disproportionately affect the poor and minority communities. Many environmentally destructive development practices severely impact the lives and lands of the indigenous communities.

With many native and indigenous people opposing government polities that allow exploitation on their lands which force them to migrate and resettle, international environmental law can play a vital role in the protection of these indigenous people as a means to also conserve biodiversity. Hence,the struggles in conserving the environment is also a part of the struggles to protect the culture of the minority and indigenous communities.

CONCLUSION

The Apex Court’s ruling in “Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India”[17] is a monumental landmark judgement in India’s environmental law jurisprudence. This judgement addressed the pollution concerns in Tamil Nadu and bolstered the legal framework for environmental sustainability in India. Harmonizing international environmental principles into domestic law, fortifying statutory provisions, and establishing uncompromising enforcement mechanisms, the Court navigated the entangled balance between industrial development and ecology. It accentuated the judiciary’s crucial role in commending sustainable development, ensuring that economic activities do not compromise environmental protection and public health. Moving forward, this decision is a guiding light for policymakers, environmental activists, and the judiciary, highlighting the disparaging need for vigilant and proactive efforts to conserve the environment for both present and future generations.

Reference(s):

[1]Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. 

[2]Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. 

[3]Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. 

[4]Nishita Gupta, Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of India, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (Jan. 29, 2025, 10:40 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13637-case-analysis-vellore-citizens-welfare-forum-v-s-union-of-india.html.

^[5][1996] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 241.

[6]The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 § 3(3), No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986, (India).

^[7]Aishwarya Agrawal, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India, LAW BHOOMI (Jan. 30, 2025, 21:00 PM), https://lawbhoomi.com/vellore-citizens-welfare-forum-v-union-of-india/.

[8]Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC212 (India).

[9]Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 (India).

[10]Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. B.B. Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 534 (India).

[11]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (India).

[12]Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, princs. 15-16, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. 1) 1992.

[13]A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 (India).

[14]Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. 

^[15]The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 § 3(3), No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986, (India).

^[16]Vijayalakshmi Raju, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647], JUDICATEME.COM (Jan. 31, 2025, 22:00 PM), https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Vellore-Citizens-Welfare-Forum-v.-Union-of-India_JudicateMe.pdf.

[17]Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.