Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum

Introduction
The Indian Constitution is amongst the few in the world which contains specific provisions for protection of
the environment. Article 48A of the constitution provides for the same. In the Vellore Citizens’ case, the 1
Indian judiciary for the first time brought the concept of sustainable development into the ambit of Indian
Law. It propounded that some of the features of sustainable development, like ‘polluter pays’ and
‘precautionary principle’ were implicit within Customary International Law and also within the Indian
constitution. This is the landmark judgement as it was the first time that the Supreme Court took the concept
of sustainable development into the purview of the law and also held that the ‘polluter pays principle’ and
the ‘precautionary principle’ were within the ambit of the law of the land.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2715, MANU/TN/0502/2016
Facts: Several tanneries operating in the State of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluent into
agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was finally discharged in
River Palar, which was the main source of water supply to the residents of the area. According to the
preliminary survey made by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre (Vellore) nearly
35,000 hectares of agricultural land in the tanneries belt, had become either partially or totally unfit for
cultivation. This was the effect of about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome-based tanning processes.
Nearly 35 litres of water was used per one kilogram of finished leather, resulting in dangerously enormous
quantities of toxic effluents being let out in the open by the tanning industry. These effluents spoilt the
physicochemical properties of the soil and contaminate ground water by percolation. It was revealed that
350 wells out of a total of 467 used for drinking and irrigation purposes had been polluted as a result of
which women and children had to walk miles to get drinking water. There were more than 900 such
tanneries that were operating in the five districts of Tamil Nadu. Some of them had been polluting the
environment for over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. The Supreme Court had in
various orders indicated that these tanneries were liable to pay pollution fine and to compensate the affected
persons as also pay the cost of restoring the damaged ecology.

Issue:
• To what extent should environmental safety be compromised for economic development?

1
Constitution of India, 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life The

This study source was downloaded by 100000827364170 from CourseHero.com on 03-09-2022 10:56:24 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111334554/EnvironmentalLaw29Ddocx/
 State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country.
• Whether the concept of sustainable development, as a balancing concept between ecology and
development, had been accepted as a part of customary international law.

• Has there been a violation of the Right to Wholesome Environment, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
constitution?

• What is the liability of the industrialists or polluter towards the environment and the people affected by
pollution?

Judgement:
-The SC held that no tannery will be allowed to re-open except if this Court fulfils that the important
contamination control devices either independently or in total have been set up by these tanneries and for
that reason, we need to rely upon the exhortation offered by Technical Specialists like the Pollution Control
Boards or NEERI. The Court coordinated the Central Contamination Control Board and the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board to mutually review the territory on war-balance. The tanneries either
straightforwardly or through educated insight may approach the Pollution Control Boards or show that their
individual units have set-up/built the important contamination Control devices.

The Supreme Court analysing the report conveyed its judgment putting forth all attempts to keep up a
concordance among condition and improvement. It conceded that these Tanneries in India are the major
foreign exchange earner and furthermore gives work to a large number of individuals. In any case, at the
equivalent time, it wrecks nature and represents a wellbeing danger to everybody. It held that the traditional
concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other. is no longer acceptable.
'SustainableDevelopment' is the answer.

The court conveying its judgment in favour of the petitioner guided all the Tanneries to submit a whole of
Rs. 10,000 as fine in the Collector’s office. The Court additionally coordinated the State of Tamil Nadu to
grant Mr. M. C. Mehta with an entirety of Rs. 50,000 as gratefulness towards his endeavours for the security
of the Environment. ·The Court right now underscored on the constitution of Green Benches in India
managing matters identifying with environment protection and furthermore for quick and speedy removal of
environmental cases.

Government to constitute an authority and confer on it all powers necessary to deal with the situation. The
authority was to implement the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle. It would also

This study source was downloaded by 100000827364170 from CourseHero.com on 03-09-2022 10:56:24 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111334554/EnvironmentalLaw29Ddocx/
 identify the families who had suffered from the pollution and access compensation and the amount to be paid
by the polluters to reverse the ecological damage. The court required the Madras High Court to monitor the
implementation of its orders through a special bench to be constituted and called a “Green Bench”.
Reason:
The Supreme Court declared in unequivocal terms that the precautionary principle and polluters pays
principle are part of the environmental. These principles have been accepted as a part of the law of the land
as Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. There is also a
constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment under article 14. It also observed that this
principle has also been accepted as part of customary international law therefore it automatically become the
part of the basic jurisprudence of the land:
"Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as
such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the
damaged ecology.”

It backed up this analysis by stating that the "'polluter-pays' principle has been held to be a sound principle
by this Court in the Bicchri case .” Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes 2

of environmental degradation Lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures. Onus of proof is on the actor to show that his action is benign.

Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payments of Compensation) Authority

The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India constituted the Loss of Ecology (Prevention
and Payments of Compensation) Authority in the year 1996 and appointed Justice P. Bhaskaran, as its
Chairman. The Authority after detailed studies and deliberations delivered its award on 12 March, 2002.
Accordingly, 547 tanneries in the District of Vellore to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.26.82 crores to
29,193 families as pollution damages and three crores to restore the environment.

Conclusion:
Sustainable development is the theory that ecological conservation and development must coexist, and that
the environment must not be compromised for development. This theory was has been historically accepted
in the general law of many states, and it came on to the international arena with the Stockholm Declaration
of 1972. In India, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India was one of the first cases to bring this
theory into the ambit of domestic law.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. 1996 (2) 196. 2

This study source was downloaded by 100000827364170 from CourseHero.com on 03-09-2022 10:56:24 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111334554/EnvironmentalLaw29Ddocx/
 References:

1. www.manupatrafast.com
2. Shastri, S. (2000). 'THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE' AND THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Journal
of the Indian Law Institute,42(1), 108-116. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43951740 3.
Lakshmanan, A. (2005). Thoughts on Environmental Public Hearings. Student Bar Review, 17, 1-5.
Retrieved June 2, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/44290305

This study source was downloaded by 100000827364170 from CourseHero.com on 03-09-2022 10:56:24 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/111334554/EnvironmentalLaw29Ddocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)