Home » Blog » Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996).

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996).

By /

Authored By: Semusi Datta

Brainware University, Barasat , West Bengal

Case Title: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996).

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647

Judges: Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice Faizan Uddin, and Justice K. Venkataswami.

Date of Judgment: 28/08/1996.

Appellant: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums.

Respondent: Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary, Department of Environment and Others.

Vellore citizens Welfare vs. Union of India is an important case. It was one of the famous landmark cases of Indian judiciary. It made to think people about the environment of our country. In that very case the apex court of India Supreme court gave and implemented various principles that actually changed the pathway for environment related cases of India. This very case gave India a landmark outcome that came out from an environmental case.

FACTS: 

  • Vellore district is an important district of Tamil Nadu, There is a river called Palar River, The Vellore district is known as leather hub of Tamil Nadu. An industrial Leather Hub was situated by Palar River. This very Palar river was very important for the residence of that very place. This  very Palr river serving the drinking and Irrigation needs for various people across several places like several towns and villages of Tamil Nadu.
  • Near the Palar River innumerable Tanneries and other industries discharged their untreated, toxic effluents and hazardous chemicals and toxins into the agricultural lands, in water bodies and near roadsides. This irresponsible behaviour of the tanneries and other industries lead to excessive pollution of ground waters, water bodies. This also destroys the crops and destroys the system of irrigation.  This incident led to destroy the quality of water for irrigation and drinking.
  • This contamination became a very big problem across the Vellore district. An independent survey reported that the contamination level is more than 350 of 467 wells in the impacted areas. The inhabitants or residents of that place had to travel several kilometres to find clean and drinkable water.
  • Government at first gave notifications and governmental schemes to innumerable tanneries of that place to put Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) or pollution control system.
  • However, the Tanneries did not obey to the Government and still used the water bodies as dumping ground for the toxic substances that were coming out of the factories.

ISSUES: 

  • Was the pollution Caused by the Irresponsible behaviour of the Tanneries for violating the “right to life” Under the Article 21 of Indian Constitution by contaminating the water and air of that very place?
  • Should the polluting industries be allowed to operate if they are harming the public and Environment diversity?
  • Is polluter pays Principle enforceable in Indian Law and what should be the remedies against those who are responsible for the degradation of the environment?
  •  What should be the amount of penalties that should be imposed to retrieve the ecological balance?
  • What should be the guidelines that should be imposed to the culprits and what will the amount of compensation for victims?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:

There were two parties in that case: The petitioner was The Vellore Citizens welfare forum it was a local NGO and the Respondents were Union of India.

Arguments of petitioner: 

  • The Local NGO Vellore Citizens welfare forum was a local non-governmental body, this very NGO argued that the Tanneries and other industries discharged massive amount of toxins, poisonous, harmful untreated chemicals that actually polluted all sources of water. Making the water unusable for agricultural use and for drinking purposes. 
  • The Petitioner also argued that this very toxic water if used in agricultural land would make the land unfruitful due to excessive amount of toxins in that water.
  • The presented the results of surveys that showed that the bad quality of water, the degradation of soil fertility and contamination of wells forced the villagers to travel for a long distance to access usable good quality of water.
  • Petitioner prayed for the closure of non-compliant tanneries.
  • The Petitioner also applied for maintaining the principles of sustainable development.
  • According to petitioner, it pressed for the application of polluter pays principles and it argued for the compensation for victims who faced this water pollution or contamination problem for years.

Arguments of respondents:

  • The respondent of this case was Union of India and also the Tanneries. 
  • The Tanneries and the state authorities argued that the presence of leather industry in Tamil Nadu is a blessing for the economic growth of the country. 
  • It also argued that the Tanneries were contributing significantly for exporting and providing livelihood for various people there.
  • They prayed for more time to install the treatment plants in their Tanneries.
  • They also requested for leniency of action against them by emphasizing the need to balance environmental concerns with economic progress.
  • The tanneries also claimed that the Tamil Nadu pollution Control Board were excessive. They justified the difficulties in rapid compliances.

JUDGEMENT: The judgement of this case was a landmark phenomenon for the Environmental cases in India. 

  • The supreme Court held that the destruction and degradation of environment directly violated the fundamental right of Article 21 under Constitution of India which ensures the Right to Life.
  • The apex court of India also stated that unsafe drinking water and loss of agricultural productivity directly violate the Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
  • The supreme court of India enforced and applied the Polluter Pays Principle.
  • Supreme Court ordered the industries which degrading the condition of the environment bear the cost of compensation for affecting the life of the common people there.
  • The court also ordered to rehabilitating the damaged environment.
  • The polluting industries or Tanneries were ordered to pay 10,000 rupees fine.
  • Those who were failing to pay or not going to pay the fine or will not going to establishing the proper pollution control technologies by the deadline will be closed and will be charged for contempt of court.
  • The Tamil Nadu state government were directed to establish a special authority under Environmental protection Act to look after the polluting industries, to enforce the court orders and dispense compensation and facilitate restoration.
  • The supreme court of India instructed the Madras High Court to create a “Green Bench” for continuous monitoring of environmental problems, cases and give remedies according to the problem.

RATIO DECIDENTI: 

The ratio decadent of this case is very important.

  • The supreme court held that the right to clean environment is a part of fundamental right under right to life under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
  • Contaminated water, and agricultural land also hampered the fundamental right of Right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
  • In this case the Supreme court enforced the Polluter Pays principle- to make responsible the industries that are degrading the environment by their actions.
  • According to polluter pays principle the industry or the person who is responsible for degrading the environment will pay for the compensation to retrieve the environment again.
  • The industry or person who is responsible for environmental damages must compensate those affected and pay for cleaning and restoration.
  • From this case the Polluter pays principle was also made an integral part of environmental law of India.
  • In this case the Supreme court stated that Industrial development must not come with the cost of environment degradation.
  • The industries should take preventive measure for not to polluted the environment.
  • From this judgement the Central Government is directed to create an authority under the Environment Protection Act for monitoring, enforcement, compensation and rehabilitation related to Industrial pollution cases.
  • The Supreme court of India Stated that The Economic progress can not became as excuse for overriding environmental precautions.
  • Economic Progress cannot override sustainable development; environmental protection is a constitutional right of Indian Citizen. It is not just a statutory right, whenever this right is infringed, the Court is required to intervene when the administrative mechanism is failed.

CONCLUSION/OBSERVATION:

The observations of this case is very important for the environmental cases in India. This case opened a new pathway for the environmental cases in India. From this case Indian Judiciary again realized that Environment is very much important part of Atmosphere. And it is Indian citizens’ and legislatures’ duty to protect it by all means. Exploiting environment in the name of progress is not a mindful excuse.

  • From this case The Supreme Court of India observed that Sustainable development is very important and it refers to balancing the economic growth with environmental Protection. The economic growth and environment neither should be sacrificed rather make a balance between them.
  • Judges referred to global principles of Rio Declaration of 1992 that emphasized the Idea of sustainable development in International Environmental standards.
  • The Supreme Court Observed that polluted water bodies, soil, air can directly impact on the health and agricultural productivity of the country, which indirectly affects the larger social, economic wellbeing of present and future generation. 
  • From this case it was observed that only making laws about environment will not fight against the odds , it has to exercised and enforced by an important authority and also had to make an authority which can deal with remedies for environmental problems so Green Benches were required.
  • The court also noted that the victims should be paid compensation by the state or the industry or person who is responsible to cause the pollution of Environment.

REFERENCE(S):

Original Judgment Links

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top