WEEK 4-6

WRIT REMEDY AND THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

I. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
POLLUTER PAYS, PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, PUBLIC TRUST
DOCTRINE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MANDATORY READINGS

1. M C Mehta v Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388

The case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) is a landmark judgment in

Indian environmental law. It involved Kamal Nath, a minister in the
central government, whose family had links to a private company, Span
Motels Pvt. Ltd., which owned Span Resorts located on the banks of the
Beas River in Kullu-Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The Himachal Pradesh
government had leased forest land near the river to this company for
commercial use to build and expand their motel. Additionally, the motel
encroached upon another piece of forest land adjacent to the leasehold
property by constructing cemented embankments and wire mesh
structures along the river, claiming it was to prevent further flooding.
The motel had previously been damaged by floods in 1988 and 1995 and
tried to divert the river’s natural course using bulldozers and other
machines. This led to allegations of serious environmental degradation,
which came to light through a newspaper article. Acting on the report,
the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings, recognizing that the
environmental harm, if true, was significant.
The Court examined two major legal questions: whether the government
violated the Public Trust Doctrine by leasing out ecologically sensitive
land to a private company, and whether the motel should be held liable
for causing environmental degradation under the Polluter Pays
Principle. The Public Trust Doctrine, which has roots in Roman and
English common law, states that the government holds natural resources
like rivers, forests, and air in trust for the public and cannot give them
away for private ownership or commercial exploitation. The Court
emphasized that such resources are meant for public use and must be
preserved for future generations. By leasing out the forest and riverbank
land for commercial purposes, the Himachal Pradesh government had
clearly breached this doctrine. The Court also discussed the Polluter Pays
Principle, affirming that those who cause environmental damage must
not only compensate for the harm but also restore the environment.

Furthermore, it invoked the Precautionary Principle, which requires

the government and other authorities to take proactive steps to prevent
environmental damage, even if there isn’t full scientific certainty.

In its final judgment, the Supreme Court quashed the lease granted to
the motel and held the government guilty of violating the Public Trust
Doctrine. The motel was ordered to pay compensation for the
environmental damage and take steps for ecological restoration. It was
directed to construct a boundary wall at a safe distance from the river to
prevent further encroachment and was prohibited from discharging
untreated waste into the river. The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control
Board was tasked with monitoring the motel’s operations, and the burden
was placed on the motel to prove why additional fines for pollution
should not be imposed. This case played a crucial role in the development
of environmental jurisprudence in India and reinforced the idea that
natural resources are not commodities for commercial gain but shared
assets held in trust for the benefit of the entire public.

2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v UOI 2010 SC (Bicchri

Village case)

The case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of

India (1996 and 2011) deals with environmental damage caused by
chemical industries in Bichhri village, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner,
an environmentalist organization, approached the Supreme Court
through a writ petition seeking justice for the villagers whose
environment, health, and livelihood were severely impacted by hazardous
waste dumped by several chemical factories. These industries were
manufacturing dangerous chemicals like oleum, single super phosphate,
and the highly toxic “H” acid without proper authorization. As a result,
untreated toxic wastewater and hazardous sludge contaminated the local
soil and water, making it unfit for agriculture, human consumption, and
animal use. The pollution led to diseases and long-term environmental
degradation. The Court noted that the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board
and State Government failed in their duties, thereby violating the
villagers’ right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Although the industries were private entities and not “State” under
Article 32, the Court directed the Central Government to act under
Sections 3 and 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Based on the
report by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
(NEERI), the Court found the respondents fully responsible for the
damage. Relying on the principle of absolute liability (as laid down in the
Oleum Gas Leak case), the Court held that enterprises engaged in
inherently dangerous activities are strictly liable for any damage caused,
without exception. The Court also applied the Polluter Pays principle,
stating that those responsible for pollution must bear the cost of
remediation. As a result, the Court directed the respondents to clean up
the environment and compensate the victims.
However, the matter did not end there. In the follow-up case in 2011, the
Court noted that despite its 1996 judgment directing the respondents to
pay Rs. 37.385 crores for remediation, the company delayed compliance
for over 15 years by filing frivolous interlocutory applications. In one
such application (IA 36), the respondents claimed that the area had
naturally recovered and no further restoration was needed. However, a
joint NEERI-RSPCB report from 2005 contradicted this, showing ongoing
contamination in the water and soil. The Court rejected this plea,
reiterating that the damage went beyond what could be naturally
restored and that complete remediation, including removal of toxic
sludge and soil restoration, was still necessary. In another application (IA
44), the respondents questioned the validity of the NEERI report used in
the 1996 judgment. The Court dismissed this too, asserting the finality of
judgments and stating that such issues could not be reopened unless
there were exceptional circumstances like judicial bias, which was not
the case here.
The Court strongly criticized the misuse of the judicial process to avoid
compliance and emphasized the importance of accountability and
deterrence. It ruled that the respondent company had unjustly enriched
itself by delaying its responsibilities and imposed compound interest at
12% per annum on the amount from 4.11.1997 until full payment.
Additionally, the Court ordered the company to bear the litigation costs.
This judgment reinforced the principles of polluter pays and absolute
liability, and highlighted the judiciary’s role in environmental protection
and in preventing the abuse of legal proceedings to escape liability.

3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others

[(1996) 5 SCC

The Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, a public-spirited group, filed

a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution
before the Supreme Court of India. The PIL was directed
against tanneries operating around the Palar River basin in Tamil
Nadu, especially in the North Arcot district. These tanneries were
discharging large volumes of untreated and highly toxic effluents directly
into the Palar River, nearby agricultural fields, and public roads.
A study conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Research Centre found that the effluents contained over 170
dangerous chemicals. Notably, the production of one kilogram of
leather required about 35 litres of water, resulting in the generation of
large amounts of polluted wastewater. These discharges severely
polluted sub-soil water, rendering it unfit for agriculture or
consumption. Crops began failing, drinking water became scarce, and
the land quality deteriorated drastically.
Though these tanneries contributed significantly to economic revenue,
the petitioner contended that this could not be justified at the cost of
irreversible environmental degradation and harm to public health and
livelihoods.

Legal Issue:
The key legal issue before the court was:
What are the liabilities of polluters — in this case, the tanneries —
towards the environment and the affected people?

Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 47 – Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the
standard of living and to improve public health.
 Article 48A – Duty of the State to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
 Article 51A(g) – Fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment.
 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Particularly Sections 3
and 5, which empower the Central Government to take necessary
measures for environmental protection.

Scientific Investigation and Analysis:

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) submitted its

affidavit on 9 January 1992. It categorized 584 tanneries into three
groups:
1. Category I – Tanneries that had functioning Effluent Treatment
Plants (ETPs) or were connected to Common Effluent
Treatment Plants (CETPs).
2. Category II – Tanneries that had proposed to install ETPs/CETPs
but had not yet done so.
3. Category III – Tanneries with no ETPs, no plans to install them,
 and who consistently defied regulatory orders.
The Court also relied on a report by the National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), an expert body that
confirmed the dangerous level of pollution. NEERI found that the Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the discharged water were far beyond
permissible limits. They recommended:
 Immediate closure of non-compliant tanneries.
 A short deadline for Category II tanneries to operationalize their
treatment plants.
 Continued operation of compliant tanneries under regular
monitoring.
NEERI also urged the Court to issue show-cause notices to the non-
compliant units asking why heavy penalties should not be imposed.

Judicial Reasoning:
The Court took this opportunity to lay down foundational principles of
Indian environmental law by referring to:
1. The Brundtland Report (1987) – which popularized the concept
of Sustainable Development.
2. The Rio Earth Summit (1992) – which reinforced global
commitments toward sustainability.
The Supreme Court held that customary international law, such as
Sustainable Development principles, can be directly enforced as part
of domestic Indian law, provided they do not conflict with municipal
statutes.
The two major principles recognized and enforced by the Court were:
1. The Precautionary Principle:
 Authorities must anticipate, prevent, and address environmental
harm.
 Even if scientific certainty is lacking, preventive steps must be
taken when there is a threat of serious environmental damage.
 Burden of proof lies on the polluter or developer to demonstrate
that their activity is environmentally harmless.
2. The Polluter Pays Principle:
 The polluting industry is absolutely liable to compensate for the
environmental harm it has caused.
 This includes both direct compensation to affected
persons and cost of environmental restoration.
Thus, the Court found that the tanneries were absolutely liable to
compensate the villagers, restore the soil and groundwater, and pay
fines, irrespective of whether they were complying with environmental
regulations.
Final Holding and Directions of the Court:
 The Court directed the establishment of a governing authority
under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act,
specifically for oversight of pollution control in Tamil Nadu.
 All non-complying tanneries were ordered to be shut down.
The Court noted they had been given repeated opportunities but
failed to act.
 Even compliant tanneries were directed to contribute towards
environmental restoration, since the damage was cumulative and
irreversible.
 Each polluting tannery was fined Rs. 10,000, a symbolic amount
at the time, to be used for environmental rehabilitation.
 The Court prohibited future establishment of similar industries
in the region until further environmental safeguards were
implemented.
 It also recommended the establishment of a ‘Green Bench’ in
the Madras High Court, a special court division to handle
environmental matters and oversee compensation claims.

ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD V MV

NAYUDU (1999(2) SCC 718)

In this case, the respondent sought to establish a vegetable oil factory

on land in Peddashpur, near the environmentally sensitive Himayat
Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes. However, a 1988 directive from the
Ministry of Environment and Forests had classified such industries as
hazardous, and in 1994, the Andhra Pradesh government imposed a
restriction prohibiting industrial activity within a 10-kilometer radius
of these water bodies. Based on this, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board (APPCB) denied the respondent’s request for a No
Objection Certificate (NOC), citing both the hazardous nature of the
industry and the applicable spatial restriction. The respondent
appealed under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and obtained a favorable ruling from the
Appellate Authority. This led to a challenge before the Supreme Court
by the APPCB.
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the APPCB’s order and
the correctness of the Appellate Authority’s decision, particularly in
the context of the 10-kilometer restriction and the industry’s potential
to harm the nearby water bodies. After evaluating the facts, the Court
determined that the proposed industrial activity posed significant
risks to water quality and upheld the importance of adhering to
 environmental safeguards. It rejected the argument for relaxing the
spatial restriction due to the ecological sensitivity of the region. While
the respondent had claimed to use eco-friendly technology, the Court
emphasized the application of the precautionary principle and
directed that the matter be referred to the National Environmental
Appellate Authority to ascertain the actual pollution potential and
environmental impact of the unit. The judgment reaffirmed that
environmental protection must take precedence in decisions involving
potentially hazardous activities near fragile ecological zones.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 2000 SC

3751

The case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India arose from a

public interest litigation filed by the environmental activist group
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), challenging the construction of
the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. The petitioners argued
that the dam, while being a part of a massive development project aimed
at providing irrigation, drinking water, and electricity, would result in
large-scale displacement of indigenous and rural communities, loss
of forests and biodiversity, and violation of fundamental rights,
particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. They
also raised concerns regarding the absence of proper environmental
impact assessments and rehabilitation measures.
In a closely contested 2:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court allowed
the continuation of the dam construction, holding that the project
was essential for economic development and national interest. The
majority opinion, delivered by Justices Kirpal and Anand, emphasized the
principle of sustainable development, holding that development and
environmental protection must be balanced. They observed that
environmental clearances had already been granted and adequate steps
for rehabilitation were being undertaken by the government. The Court
also underscored the concept of intergenerational equity, asserting
that the present generation could not deny future generations the
benefits of development projects that improve quality of life.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Bharucha, however, raised strong
concerns about the inadequate rehabilitation of displaced persons and
the lack of compliance with environmental clearance conditions. He
stressed that displacement without proper resettlement would amount to
a violation of constitutional rights and that development must not come
at the cost of human dignity and survival.
This judgment is significant in Indian environmental law for its nuanced
take on development versus environment debates. While it upheld the
government's power to pursue large infrastructure projects, it also
reinforced the responsibility to ensure proper rehabilitation, comply
with environmental safeguards, and conduct thorough assessments. The
case remains a point of reference for discussions on displacement,
public participation, environmental justice, and the limits of judicial
intervention in state policy decisions.

4. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P. AIR 2006 SC 1350

In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupati v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme

Court addressed a dispute concerning the preservation of two ancient
water bodies—Avilala Tank and Peruru Tank—located near Tirupati. The
appellant, a registered society, challenged the alienation of these tank
bed lands by the State and its agencies for urban development purposes.
The High Court had dismissed the challenge, but the appellants
contended that this development prioritized economic gain over
environmental sustainability and disregarded freshwater conservation.
The respondents argued the tanks were abandoned and no longer
functional since the 1980s, with no public objections raised during the
official process of land allocation. The Supreme Court, invoking the
public trust doctrine, held that natural resources cannot be
surrendered for private or commercial purposes unless it is demonstrably
in the public interest. It emphasized that urban development must align
with sustainable development principles, environmental protection
under Articles 14 and 21, and duties outlined in Directive Principles
and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. The Court criticized the State's
failure to explore environmental restoration and reaffirmed the State's
duty to safeguard natural resources for current and future generations.
The judgment ultimately reinforced the balance between urban
expansion and ecological responsibility.

II. THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT

MANDATORY READINGS

PRAFULLA SAMANTRA AND ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(POSCO CASE).

Facts:
The appeals were filed against the Environmental Clearances (ECs)
granted in April 2022 to JSW Utkal Steel Ltd. for two interconnected
mega-projects near Paradeep, Odisha — an integrated steel plant with
cement and power components, and a captive jetty project. The
appellants argued that the ECs were granted despite serious procedural
lapses in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process,
inadequate public consultation, non-disclosure of crucial environmental
impacts, and potential violation of environmental norms, especially given
the region’s proximity to already polluted zones.

Issues:
 Whether the cumulative EIA report was available to the public
prior to the public hearing.
 Whether the project’s water extraction from Mahanadi River was
adequately assessed for sustainability.
 Whether establishing a captive jetty near an existing major port
(Paradeep Port) was environmentally justified.
 Whether the site’s proximity to critically polluted areas and
sensitive ecological zones was ignored.
 Whether the EC process violated principles of public trust,
sustainable development, and precautionary approach.

Arguments:
Appellants:

 The final Common EIA report was made public only after the 2019
public consultation, vitiating the process.
 No cumulative impact assessment (CIA) was done before the public
hearing.
 Concerns about water scarcity and riverine ecological disruption
from the Mahanadi River were overlooked.
 Jetty was planned within 500 meters of Paradeep Port, despite
redundant capacity.
 Project disregarded previous NGT findings and conditions in the
abandoned POSCO project for the same area.

Respondents (Project Proponent & MoEF&CC):

 All required clearances and studies were completed, and due

procedure followed.
 Clarifications and additional studies were standard practice and
didn’t alter the substance of the EIA.
 The project would generate significant employment and economic
benefits.
 Public hearing was lawfully conducted in 2019, and changes did
 not mandate a repeat hearing.

Reasoning:
The Tribunal held that:

 The final EIA report, including key studies (e.g., marine

biodiversity, shoreline erosion, SIA), was published only after the
public hearing — undermining transparency and effective
consultation.
 Multiple EAC meetings initially returned the proposal for want of
key studies and clarifications, yet the final recommendation in
February 2022 lacked independent reasoning.
 The project’s proximity to critically polluted areas, potential to
aggravate coastal erosion, and reliance on freshwater from
Mahanadi without due scrutiny posed serious ecological concerns.
 The EC granted overlooked findings of the 2012 NGT order in the
POSCO case, where similar concerns were flagged.

Held:
 The Environmental Clearances dated 11 and 12 April 2022 were
suspended.
 The matter was remanded to the MoEF&CC for fresh appraisal by
the EAC.
 MoEF&CC is directed to complete the fresh appraisal and decision
within three months.
 ECs remain suspended until such appraisal is completed.

Legal Principles Applied:

 Precautionary Principle
 Polluter Pays Principle
 Public Trust Doctrine
 Sustainable Development
 Reference to Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. UOI and Intellectuals
Forum v. State of A.P.

1. M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu

Pollution State Control Board and Ors. (Sterlite Case).

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., was directed to shut
down its operations with immediate effect by the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board (the respondent), as per an order dated 29th March 2013.
This directive was issued under the powers conferred by Sections 21 and
31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and
Section 19(4)(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Following the
order, the Board also instructed the Superintending Engineer of the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to disconnect electricity supply to the
company.
Sterlite Industries was engaged in the manufacture of copper cathodes
and rods, using copper smelting concentrates in its production process.
This industrial activity led to the release of sulphur dioxide, a toxic,
pungent gas. The emission of this gas was meant to be regulated using
an analyser supported by tamper-proof software, as recommended by the
respondent Board. Calibration checks were a part of this regulatory
process to ensure emissions remained within permissible limits.
The Board's action stemmed from public complaints in Tuticorin—where
the appellant’s plant was located—regarding symptoms like eye irritation
and throat suffocation, which were attributed to exposure to sulphur
dioxide. Prior to the shutdown order, on 24th March 2013, the company
had received a notice alleging contravention of Section 21 of the Air Act.
The company contested the order, calling it arbitrary and discriminatory.
The respondent claimed that sulphur dioxide levels in the ambient air
had sharply risen from 20 μg/m³ to 62 μg/m³. Moreover, it noted that the
sulphur dioxide monitor was not connected to CARE Air Centre, thereby
breaching regulatory protocols. The company, on its part, argued that
calibration tests showed their analyser was functioning correctly and that
emissions were within statutory norms. They also claimed compliance
with all directives issued by the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI).

Legal Proceedings and Judgment:

The appeal (Appeal No. 57 of 2013, M.A. No. 78 of 2013 (SZ)) was heard
by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), chaired by Justice Swatanter
Kumar along with expert members Dr. D.K. Agarwal, Dr. G.K. Pandey,
and Dr. R.C. Trivedi. After examining the legal, technical, and factual
issues, the Tribunal concluded that the company had indeed contravened
environmental laws and failed to prevent pollution. A Special Leave
Petition was subsequently filed before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal, applying the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays
Principle, and the doctrine of Sustainable Development, directed Sterlite
to pay ₹100 crores as compensation for polluting the environment. The
Tribunal emphasized that environmental cases must be adjudicated in
line with these principles to safeguard public health and ecological
integrity. The Tribunal also allowed the company to resume its
operations but imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance.
A Special Expert Committee was constituted to monitor compliance. The
committee, comprising members nominated by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, included state health officials,
pollution control board members, a political representative (Mr. Vaiko),
and two independent experts—one from environmental sciences and the
other from public health. The company was instructed to publicly
disclose air quality and emissions data without any concealment and to
comply with all recommendations of the committee within eight weeks.
The committee was tasked with submitting bi-monthly reports to both the
Tribunal and the respondent Board.

Relevant Environmental Laws and Principles:

Key legal provisions applied in the case include Section 21 of the Air Act,
which restricts the establishment or operation of industrial plants in air
pollution control areas without prior consent from the State Pollution
Control Board. It mandates compliance with specified conditions related
to the installation and functioning of pollution control equipment,
maintenance of emission standards, and mandatory reporting of changes.
Section 31A empowers pollution control boards to issue binding
directions, including industrial shutdowns and stoppage of utilities.
Section 19(4)(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, empowers the
Tribunal to summon witnesses and examine documents to discharge its
functions. The Tribunal relied heavily on environmental principles such
as the Precautionary Principle, which calls for preventive action in the
face of uncertainty; the Polluter Pays Principle, which ensures that those
responsible for pollution bear the costs of managing it; and the concept
of Sustainable Development, defined by the Brundtland Commission as
meeting the needs of the present without compromising future
generations’ ability to meet their own.

Conclusion:
The case against M/s Sterlite Industries stands as a significant ruling in
India’s environmental jurisprudence, highlighting the judiciary’s
proactive stance in enforcing environmental compliance and public
accountability. The Tribunal’s reliance on scientific data, expert
oversight, and guiding principles of environmental law reflects an
integrated and balanced approach toward industrial development and
ecological preservation. Ultimately, Sterlite Industries was held liable for
polluting the environment and was required to rectify its operations
under close supervision.

WEEK 7-8
STATUTORY REGIMES REGULATING RISK

The exploration will centre on the legal and policy frameworks regulating
environmental risks in accordance with the Air, Water, and
Environmental Protection Acts. This segment will also delve into the
discussion of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms, elucidating their significance and drawing
insights from relevant case laws.

I. WATER POLLUTION

MANDATORY READINGS

1. M/s Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v Central Board for the Prevention
and Control of Water Pollution, AIR 1986 Del. 152
2. Stella Silks vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Kant 219
3. Narula Dyeing & Printing Works vs. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj
185

II. AIR POLLUTION

MANDATORY READINGS

1. M C Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734 (Taj Trapezium

Case)
2. M C Mehta v Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1696 (CNG Vehicles
Case)

III. REGULATORY REGIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT

A. Environmental Impact Assessments
MANDATORY READINGS
1. Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188721650/
2. Samarth Trust A Registered Trust v. Union of India
MANU/DE/1129/2010
3. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2019)15 SCC 401 (Goa airport case I)
4. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India and Ors, (2020) 12
SCC 1. (Goa airport case II)