Case Law

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

Facts:
An NGO called Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum has filed a PIL under Article 32
of the Indian Constitution regarding pollution caused by massive discharges of
untreated sewage by tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu. Untreated
sewage is dumped into agricultural lands, open lands, and rivers, eventually
ending up in the Palar River, which serves as the primary source of water supply
for the population of that area. It was said that the entire surface and subsoil of
the water surface had been polluted as a result of this untreated sewage
discharge, resulting in a lack of water for the population of the area.

According to a survey conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University

Research Centre, more than 35,000 hectares of agricultural lands in the
tanneries belt have become either partially or completely unfit for agriculture
due to the excessive use of chemicals and dyes, which has harmed soil quality
and contaminated groundwater. 350 of the 467 wells were contaminated. It was
also revealed that just 443 tanneries out of 584 had filed for the board's
approval.

Issue Raised:

Whether the tanneries should be permitted to keep on working at the expense

of environment and health & lives of lakhs of individuals?

Arguments:

Petitioner: The Petitioner's Learned Counsel contended in court that the

discharge of untreated effluents from the tanneries contaminated the whole
surface and subsurface water of the Palar River. This contamination has made
it difficult for residents to obtain safe, drinkable water.

A survey report from Peace Members, a non-governmental group, was given by

the petitioner. This survey examined 13 towns in the Dindigal and Peddiar
Chatram Anchayat Unions and discovered pollution in 350 of 467 drinking and
irrigation wells. It was emphasized that percolation polluted groundwater,
resulting in acute water scarcity for the inhabitants. Women and children were
frequently required to go considerable distances to obtain safe drinking water
for their families.

The petitioner provided another survey report requested by the Legal Aid and
Advice Board of Tamil Nadu, which was done in Solur village by lawyers M.R.
Ramanan and P.S. Subramaniam. This survey discovered 176 compounds in
the tannery effluents, indicating substantial levels of pollution. It was noted that
processing just one kilogram of leather requires around 40 litres of water,
resulting in an alarmingly large volume of harmful effluents from tanneries.

Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural

University Research Centre in Vellore, nearly 35,000 hectares of land in the
tanneries belt have become completely or partially unsuitable for agricultural.

The petitioner argued that despite the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and
the government urging tanneries to establish Common Effluent Treatment
Plants or set up their own effluent treatment plants for about a decade, most
tanneries were still operating without any treatment plants, even when the
Central Government offered subsidies for setting up common treatment
facilities.

Respondent:
The tanneries' counsel contended that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) limits were unjustifiable.

On April 9, 1996, however, the Court invited the National Environmental

Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to investigate and provide expertise on
this matter. The NEERI assessment affirmed the Board's requirements as
reasonable.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) has yet to develop definitive
guidelines for the release of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), sulphates, and
chlorides into inland surface water. Individual State Pollution Control Boards
have the authority to make these decisions based on local site conditions.

The TNPCB's criteria for inland surface water release can be met for tannery
wastewater by implementing adequate control measures throughout the
tanning process, as well as effectively operating and correctly designed
wastewater treatment facilities (ETPs and CETPs).

Judgement:

The court directed the central government to establish an authority under

section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and prescribed some
guidelines for the authority's operation:

The authority was given the necessary powers to deal with issues concerning
tanneries and other polluting industries in Tamil Nadu State.

The authority has the authority to give directives under Section 5 of the
Environment Act. It should apply the precautionary principle as well as the
polluter pays principle. It should divide compensation into two categories:
payments to individuals and reversing the ecosystem. A statement should be
prepared that shows the entire amount of compensation to be given, the names
of polluters and affected families, and the total money that must be deposited
with the district magistrate/collector of the affected region, who will repay the
impacted.

The court imposed a pollution fine of Rs.10,000 each on all tanneries in North
Arcot Ambedkar, Dindigul Anna, Erode Periyar, Chennai M.G.R., and Trichi and
ordered them to pay before October 31, 1996. The amount should be paid to
the district magistrate/collector, who must collect it under the head of
environment protection fund, which will be used to reimburse the affected
people and restore the damaged environment.

• It has also directed the establishment of common treatment facilities or

individual pollution control devices, as well as the obtaining of board approval
for continuing operation.

• The court has ordered the superintendent of police and the

collector/magistrate of specified areas to immediately close or move tanneries
that have failed to acquire approval from the board.

• It went on to say that the board's TDS guidelines were in effect and that
all companies and tanneries in Tamil Nadu had to follow them.

The court has directed the Madras High Court to form a special bench known
as the "Green Bench" to handle this issue and other environmental matters.

• The court ordered the state of Tamil Nadu to pay MC Mehta Rs.50,000 in
legal fees and other expenditures and praised him for his active engagement.
 Case Law

M.C Mehta vs Union of India

Facts:

M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer, and social activist, filed a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India against about 89 respondents,
wherein Respondent 1, Respondent 7, Respondent 8 and Respondent 9 were
Union of India, the Chairman of the Central Board for prevention and Control of
pollution, the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh pollution Control Board and Indian
Standards Institute respectively who were not held liable.

The court ruling commenced in 1985 in the holy city of Haridwar located along
the banks of the stream Ganga when a matchstick flung by a smoker resulted
in the river bursting into flames for over 30 hours. The fire was discovered to be
a consequence of the presence of harmful inflammable compound layer over
the waters. The Court had believed the issue to be one of prime significance,
however, the immense size of the case, i.e., the stretch of the river, was found
to be troublesome.

Issues:

Whether all the leather tanneries had at least set up a primary treatment plant

Whether the State Government had paid attention to the worsening condition of
the sacred river and had initiated probation into the matter?

Whether any steps, if at all, had been taken by the state?

Whether the smaller industries should be funded for setting up effluent

treatment plants? If yes, then what should be the criteria to determine smaller
industries?
What all steps should the Central Government must take to regulate pollutant
discharge into the river throughout its course?

Arguments of Petitioner:

The petitioner had grieved that neither the authorities nor the people, whose
lives were intricately connected with the river and directed affected by it,
seemed to be concerned about the increasing levels of pollution of the Ganga
and necessary steps were required to prevent the same. The petitioner, in the
capacity of an active social worker, had therefore sought a writ/direction/order
in the nature of mandamus, directing inter alia inhibiting the Respondents from
releasing toxic effluents into the Ganga until they integrate appropriate
treatment plants to treat the effluents to stop water pollution.

Arguments of Respondents:

None of the tanneries disputed the fact that the effluent discharge from the
tanneries grossly pollutes the Ganga

It was stated that they discharge the trade effluents into the sewage nullah,
which leads to the Municipal Sewage slants before discharge into the river.

Some tanneries stated that they have already had primary treatment plants,
while some are presently engaged in the same.

Some of the tanneries who were members of the Hindustan Chambers of

Commerce and some of the other tanneries guaranteed that with the approval
of Respondent 8 (State Board), they would construct primary treatment plants
which would be operational within a period of six months from the date of
hearing and in failing to do so, will shut down their tanneries.

Judgment:
The court considered all the facts and gave the judgment in 1988. The court in
this case, stated that petitioner was someone who was interested in protecting
the people who were using the water and he could file a petition to enforce
statutory provisions against the mahapalika and other officials involved. The
court indicated that several waters borne diseases that could result due to the
polluted water and how it is very harmful for the common man. On the issue of
whose responsibility was it, the court held that the industries were responsible
to make sure that their waste is treated properly and then discharged.

The court further said that an industry should be given a license only if they can
demonstrate an adequate way of treating the waste. The existing industries if,
found responsible for water pollution then strict action must be taken against
them. The court also ordered the tanneries to establish a primary treatment
plant if not a secondary one.

The court also held the mahapalika responsible for not obliging to their duties
and not taking any steps for prevention of water pollution. It issued directions to
the mahapalika to take immediate actions for the same.

The court also asked the central government to issue books free of cost in order
to increase the knowledge regarding the environment of the general public. It
also said that this judgement would be applicable to all the Mahapalikas which
have a jurisdiction over the river Ganga.
Reference:

(1) Environmental law - Gurudipsingh

(2) Environmental law - Dr. Paramjit Jaiswal

(3) http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content /documents /15836 India. pdb

TOPIC: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

INDEX:

SR NO CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
DEVELOPMENT
5. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION IN INDIA (ACT)
6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
7. RELATED LAWS & IMPLEMENTATIONS IN INDIA
8. STOCKHOLM DECLARATION,1972
9. PRINCIPLES - 26
10. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
11. CASE – VELLORE CITIZEN WELFARE FORUM VS UNION OF
INDIA
12. CASE- M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA
13. PRECUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
14. POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
15. CONCLUSION
16. REFERENCE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to

my professor for giving me a golden opportunity to know
more about the topic of:

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Your useful advice and suggestion were really helpful to

me during completion.

In this aspect I express my Special Thanks to you for

such a great learning experience.