Site icon Raw Law

Supreme Court: “Polluter Pays Principle is Absolute” – Tanneries in Vellore Liable for Continuing Environmental Damage Until Full Ecological Restoration, Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Compensation and Strict Enforcement of Pollution Control Measures

Supreme Court: "Polluter Pays Principle is Absolute" – Tanneries in Vellore Liable for Continuing Environmental Damage Until Full Ecological Restoration, Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Compensation and Strict Enforcement of Pollution Control Measures

Supreme Court: "Polluter Pays Principle is Absolute" – Tanneries in Vellore Liable for Continuing Environmental Damage Until Full Ecological Restoration, Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Compensation and Strict Enforcement of Pollution Control Measures

Share this article
WhatsappXFacebookInstagramLinkedinTelegramReddit

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of the petition and ruled that the liability of polluting industries extends beyond 1998 until the damage to the environment is fully reversed. The Polluter Pays Principle is absolute, meaning industries must compensate affected individuals and fund environmental restoration. The Court also ordered a reassessment of compensation and directed the authorities to strictly enforce pollution control measures, recover unpaid compensation, and prosecute defaulting industries.


Facts of the Case

1. Pollution Caused by Tanneries in Vellore

2. Supreme Court’s 1996 Judgment (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Case)

3. Dispute Over Compensation and Compliance


Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Does the liability of polluting industries extend beyond 1998 until pollution damage is reversed?
  2. Did the High Court err in quashing the LoEA’s 2009 compensation reassessment?
  3. Were industries still polluting the Palar River despite earlier Supreme Court orders?
  4. Did authorities fail to enforce pollution control measures and compensation collection?
  5. Were industries operating illegally near the river, violating environmental laws?

Petitioner’s (Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee) Arguments

1. Compensation Was Inadequate and Not Fully Paid

2. Pollution Continued Beyond 1998

3. Industrial Violation of Environmental Laws

4. Failure of Authorities to Implement Restoration Measures


Respondent’s (AISHTMA – Tanneries’ Association) Arguments

1. Full Compensation Already Paid

2. Industries Implemented Pollution Control Measures

3. Other Sources Were Polluting the Palar River

4. Reassessment of Compensation After 10 Years Was Illegal


Analysis of the Law

1. Polluter Pays Principle

2. Precautionary Principle

3. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974


Precedent Analysis

  1. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)Established “Polluter Pays Principle”.
  2. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)Polluters have absolute liability for environmental harm.
  3. Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014)Liability continues until full environmental restoration.

Court’s Reasoning


Conclusion

  1. Industries must continue paying compensation until pollution is fully reversed.
  2. Tanneries that fail to comply with ZLD norms must be shut down.
  3. Government must enforce G.O.213/1989 and relocate industries operating illegally.
  4. Authorities must prosecute polluters under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
  5. Compensation for affected individuals must be reassessed and disbursed.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces India’s commitment to environmental justice and sustainable development.

4o

Exit mobile version