Authored By: Aman Jha
Noida International University
Case Name: VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.(1996)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bench: Justice Kuldeep Singh, Justice Faizan Uddin and Justice K. Venkataswami
28 August, 1996
Petitioner Name: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
Respondent Name: Union Of India & Others
FACT OF THE CASE:
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others is one of the most important environmental law cases in India. Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum, a non-profit organization committed to protecting the environment, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in front of the Supreme Court of India against severe environmental degradation caused by tanneries and other industries that are located in several parts of Tamil Nadu,[1] such as Vellore, Erode, Periyar, Dindigul, and Tiruchirapalli.
According to the petitioner, a large number of tanning companies dumped their waste water (which contains dangerous pollutants like chromium) into places such as fields, rivers, streams, and even land used to grow crops.[2] This waste has now ruined the underground water supply around those places and has made the water of nearby rivers/streams unsafe for drinking or irrigation. In addition to poisoning the local population, this pollution has also severely impacted the productivity of local farms.
Numerous investigations conducted by specialist committees along with The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board affirmed the claims of industrial waste from the leather industry causing permanent harm to our surroundings through the disposal of wastewater containing toxins into waterways. Because of this toxic contamination of available sources of water throughout the region, many community members who utilize ground water in order to drink water or produce crops are challenged with accessing drinkable water today.[3]
The leather industry claims it has a big positive effect on India’s economy because it creates job opportunities and brings money into India from exporting leather products. However, the petitioner argues that even though an economy may grow due to industry development, it does not matter because destroying the environment and violating people’s rights is more important than creating an economy with jobs and export revenues.
Because of these conflicting views, this case was brought to the Supreme Court for a balancing of the competing interests (of industrial development versus environmental protection).
ISSUES RAISED:
The Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the discharge of untreated industrial waste water by tanneries violates Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that all citizens have a fundamental right to life.[4]
The second question is whether or not an industrial facility that causes an environmental hazard can also be held responsible for paying for the damages that it causes, and/or be required to bear the costs associated with remediating any damaged area.[5]
If the principles of Sustainable Development, Precaution Against Pollution and the Polluter Pays Principle have been recognized in India, this would mean that industrial development should not be allowed if it results in damage to the environment or harm to people’s health.[6]
Finally, whether the Indian government has a constitutional duty under Article 48A, which requires the State to protect and improve the environment and Article 51A(g), which requires the State to encourage people to obey the law.[7]
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s claim is that tanneries are polluting the environment to a degree that they are in breach of multiple Acts of Parliament relating to environmental pollution. The petitioner further contends that industrial wastes from tanneries have been dumped unprocessed into water bodies and agricultural land, resulting in irreparable damage to the environment.[8]
The petitioner also contends that pollution is the equivalent of violating the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner believes that the right to life requires an individual to be able to live in an environment that is as clean and healthful as can be. The petitioner’s claim of contaminated water, and damage to the environment, should create the most serious risk to many peoples’ health and livelihood.[9]
Additionally, they contended that those industries that cause pollution must provide for their accounts when it comes to fixing damages done to the environment. They engaged with contemporary norms of international environmental law, namely the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle.[10]
The petitioner sought that the court require those polluting industries to purchase lawful pollution control devices, provide compensation to members of the general public who have been damaged as a result of the pollution, and make repairs to the damaged area as otherwise required by the court.
Arguments Of the Respondent:
Various groups, including tannery owners and industry associations, submitted that the leather sector is an integral component of Indian economic expansion; it provided substantial export income for the country and created jobs for hundreds of thousands of individuals.
They expressed concern that shutting down these enterprises overnight would lead to serious economic problems such as losses in foreign exchange earnings and the elimination of many jobs.[11]
They indicated that many businesses have made efforts to install air/water pollution-detecting equipment and comply with environmental regulations.
JUDGEMENT:
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court found in favor of the petitioner and determined that protecting the environment is a part of the fundamental right to life as outlined under Article 21 of the Constitution.[12]
The Court also reinforced that polluting industries could not avoid liability for environmental harm simply because they added to the overall economy. In addition to establishing adequate pollution controls and complying with all current laws, polluters were further directed by the Court to close if they failed to meet any required standards and were ordered to compensate persons harmed by their pollution and assist in restoring ecosystems adversely affected by their actions.[13]
This ruling represents a monumental step forward in developing Indian environmental law by recognizing recognized international environmental principles and making them a part of domestic law.
LEGAL REASONING/ RATIO DECIDENDI:
Constitutional principles, domestic environmental legislation and public international law.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees an individual not only the right to live but also the ability to live with dignity; thus, a person must have a safe and healthy environment in which to do so. Accordingly this aspect of a person’s life, namely having a safe and healthy environment, is included in the meaning of “existence” as defined by Article 21.
The Court next reviewed the provisions of Article 48A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment, and also Article 51A(g), which establishes that citizens are to work toward protecting and improving our environment and conserving or restoring our natural resources.
Incorporation of Sustainable Development into Indian law was a major development resulting from this decision. Moreover, there is no contradiction between developing as well as protecting the environment; on the contrary there must be development that results in the continued ability to utilize the earth’s natural resources.[14]
Recognition of the Precautionary Principle was established by the Court. The Precautionary Principle allows for the possibility of environmental harm before any certainty regarding the environmental damage is known to the parties. Therefore, as opposed to other principles, such as the ultimate burden of persuasion being on the plaintiff; the ultimate burden will be on the party performing or engaged in any activity that may cause environmental damage to prove their activity is not harmful to the environment.[15]
The Court has accepted the Polluter Pays Principle. A polluting industry must incur all financial costs associated with preventing and mitigating pollution from the environment. The compensation paid to the affected party should include payments for individual losses and reimbursement for all costs related to restoring ecological balance.
The Court states that damaging the environment has caused great harm to the future and to present- day society. Therefore, when making any decision, governments must give importance to environmental issues.
Ratio Decidendi:
In summary, the ratio decidendi illustrates the following: The Principles of Precaution, Polluter Pays Principle, Sustainable Development – form part of Indian Law.[16] And the Right to A Clean and Healthy Environment is incorporated in Article 21 of the Constitution, one of the Fundamental Rights / basic freedoms, Life. Economic Development and Environmental Protection cannot be pursued independently – they cannot ‘trump’ public health.
It established binding and procedural precedent, and thus is binding on all other parties in Environmental Cases.
OBSERVATION:
The Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India case is an important environmental law ruling in India and fundamentally changed how India views environmental protection from just being governed by laws to something to be done as part of the Constitution.
A key to this judgment involved the Court recognizing ‘Sustainable Development’ as a guiding principle of environmental governance in India. The Court also fairly considered both aspects of Industrial Development and Environmental Protection and did not favour one over another.
The ruling also exemplifies how international environmental law has begun to establish itself within the domestic system of laws. The Indian Supreme Court included the ‘Polluter Pays’ and ‘Precautionary Principles’ in their domestic law which puts Indian environmental law into accordance with international environmental principles.
The case solidified Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as an efficient way of protecting environmental rights and holding governments accountable for their actions. It also facilitated a higher level of public involvement in environmental matters and demonstrated the willingness of the judiciary to get involved if executive bodies do not fulfill their constitutional duties.[17]
Some people felt the case was an example of judicial activism due to the use of “international norms” which had not been expressly included in legislation, and some have noted that enforcement of environmental regulations is still an issue despite the existence of legal standards established by the Court.
Clearly, the judgment has had a very positive overall effect, as it now constitutes a primary source of authority in environmental decision-making, and is one of the most frequently cited cases in Indian environmental law.[18]
REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY (Copy-Paste Format)
CASES
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
- Constitution of India, Article 21.
- Constitution of India, Article 48A.
- Constitution of India, Article 51A(g).
STATUTES
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.
- OECD, Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies (1972).
- World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Brundtland Report, 1987).
BOOKS
- P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law (LexisNexis, 2019).
- M.P. Jain, Public Interest Litigation in India (LexisNexis, 2017).
REPORTS
- Central Pollution Control Board, Industrial Pollution Series: Tanneries, Government of India.
- Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Environmental Status Reports.
- Council for Leather Exports, Annual Export Report.
[1] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[2] Central Pollution Control Board, Industrial Pollution Series: Tanneries, Government of India.
[3] Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Environmental Status Reports.
[4] Constitution of India, Art. 21.
[5] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[6] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.
[7] Constitution of India, Arts. 48A & 51A(g)
[8] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
[9] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
[10] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Principle 15.
[11] Council for Leather Exports, Annual Export Report.
[12] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
[13] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[14] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987).
[15] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.
[16] OECD, Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies (1972).
[17] M.P. Jain, Public Interest Litigation in India (LexisNexis, 2017).
[18] P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law (LexisNexis, 2019).
