The Palar River Judgment: A Nationwide Blueprint for Holding Polluters and Stakeholders Accountable

Introduction

A landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary Mr. R. Rajebdran Versus the District Collector, Vellore District & Others, stands as a watershed moment in environmental jurisprudence. 

The case revolves around the environmental degradation of Palar River in the Vellore District of Tamil Nadu,  mainly due to the tannery industry. 

While these industries contribute significantly to the district’s economy, they release effluents and solid waste directly into the river and its channels, making the water unfit for both drinking and agricultural use. 

The ruling provides insightful directions to combat the devastating chain reaction upon the environment by unchecked economic activities and offers a fresh perspective on the shared responsibility of polluters and the government.

Factual Matrix 

The said issue was first brought to the notice of the court by a Public Interest Litigation, initiated by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum in 1991, highlighting severe pollution of the Palar River due to untreated tannery and industrial effluents, impacting the ecosystem and drinking water availability. 

The PIL sought compensation for those harmed by the pollution. The supreme court by judgment dated 28.08.1997¹, imposed fines on tanneries, directed them to set up pollution control devices by a specific deadline, and banned new polluting industries in the area.  

Existing industries in prohibited zones were subjected to review and potential relocation. Standards for water quality were mandated, and the Madras High Court was designated to oversee implementation of  directions issued by the Supreme Court.

The court further directed the Central Government to create an authority to handle the situation. Thus, the LoEA (Loss of Ecology Prevention and Payment of Compensation Authority) was  constituted by the Government of India, vide its Notification dated 30.9.1996, headed by a retired High Court judge. The LoEA  was tasked with assessing ecological damage and compensation for affected individuals, recovering costs from polluters, and implementing the “precautionary” and “polluter pays principles”. The LoEA identified 29,193 affected individuals and families across 186 villages in seven taluks of Vellore District, covering 15,164.96 hectares. In its award dated March 7, 2001, the LoEA, determined compensation of Rs. 26,82,02,328 for the period between August 12, 1991, and December 31, 1998. The LoEA also clarified that the polluting industries’ liability to compensate would continue beyond December 31, 1998, until the ecological damage was reversed. 

The affected individuals and families, represented by the foundation forum, sought compensation for the ongoing ecological damage, arguing that it should continue until the pollution’s effects were reversed, filedWP.No.8335 of 2008 . Conversely, the AISHTMA (Association of Indian Shoe Tanning Machinery Manufacturers) filed Writ Petition 22683 of 2009, to establish that they had fulfilled their compensation obligations and to limit their future liability.

Ultimately, the High Court, through its order dated 08.02.2010, brought an end to the protracted litigation initiated by both sides, and dismissed the claims of Vellore citizen welfare forum, as well as AISHTMA, respectively.

Key Arguments 

The appellant, argued that 28 years after the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum judgment, polluters have failed to stop polluting despite being given the chance. The appellant further drew the attention of the court towards the  Government funded  CETPs (Common Effluent Treatment Plants),  improperly located near the river, which worsened the pollution. 

The TNPCB (Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board), despite acknowledging the violations, took no action for decades and even failed to inform the court. 

The appellant concluded the arguments by specifying that the tanneries and CETPs have no justification for their actions, having profited at the expense of the environment and farmers’ livelihoods.

With these submissions, the appellants’ counsel sought a directive to shut down tanneries and CETPs persistently discharging pollutants without achieving Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLDZ) and prayed for compensation for affected individuals until the ecological damage is reversed and the river’s health restored.

All-India Skin and Hide Tanners and Merchants Association (AISHTMA), the contesting respondent in SLP (C) Nos.23633-23634 of 2010 and the appellant in SLP (C) No.26608 of 2011, argued that they have fully complied with the LoEA’s directives by paying the assessed compensation and adhering to the recommended ecological preservation schemes. AISHTMA further claimed no further payments are due, highlighting their role in the Indian economy and employment sector. (AISHTMA), also pointed out that other pollution sources, like untreated sewage and solid waste, contribute to the river’s degradation, suggesting a broader approach to pollution management beyond targeting the tannery industry alone.

Judgement and Rationale  .

The bench held that tanneries must pay compensation to the affected people until the environmental damage is fully reversed. It further directed the State government to disburse compensation to all affected families and individuals, if not already done, and to subsequently recover these sums from the polluting entities. 

These crucial directives were firmly grounded upon several foundational environmental principles: the Doctrine of Public Trust, the Principle of Sustainable Development, the Right to a Healthy Environment, and the Polluter Pays Principle. 

The Court, while citing Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India and others², pointed out Government Pay Principle Vis-À-Vis Responsibility of The Government. The court further held that although the polluters are absolutely liable for environmental damage, governments also share responsibility for prevention and remediation. The court opined that the “Polluter Pays Principle,” while aiming to penalize polluters, depends heavily on government oversight and enforcement. When governments fail to properly regulate environmental damage “Government Pays Principle” comes in play, holding governments accountable for their regulatory failures. 

Key Takeaways 

This landmark judgment delivers a nearly comprehensive set of directives designed to revitalize the polluted  Palar River and avert future ecological catastrophes. It achieves this through the establishment of a multi-faceted approach encompassing key areas : the formation of a dedicated oversight committee; a framework for compensation and its recovery from polluters; robust monitoring and transparency mechanisms, including real-time data dissemination; a comprehensive strategy for ecological restoration; stringent pollution control measures; enhanced industry accountability through stricter regulations and penalties; safeguards for worker safety; a comprehensive plan for river rejuvenation; sustainable waste management practices; and the development of adequate sewage treatment infrastructure. 

Conclusion

While the Palar River judgment and subsequent directives effectively tackles the issue at hand, it also provides a foundation for broader action on India’s diverse pollution challenges. 

India’s environmental degradation issues like persistent air quality issues in the North to coastal pollution in the South demands nationwide action. By building on the principles of this judgement, the apex court has an opportunity to issue nationwide directives that ensures enforcement of environmental laws and sets accountability of polluters, government and all other stakeholders. 

¹W.P.(C)No.914 of 1991

²Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 5SCC 281