Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

VELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRANversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT & OTHERS

2025 INSC 13130 January 2025Disposed off

The case concerns the continued pollution of the Palar River in Vellore District by tannery effluents and the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA). The appellants, the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee, challenged the Madras High Court's dismissal of writ petitions th

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2016 INSC 45829 June 2016Dismissed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) auctioned a 14.3‑hectare parcel of land for residential development on an "as is where is" basis, and Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. (the builder) paid the full bid amount and obtained possession. The development agreement required the builder to secure all statutory clearances

VEDANTA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

2024 INSC 17529 February 2024Dismissed

Vedanta Limited operates a copper smelter at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State Government ordered its closure for repeated violations of environmental norms, including operating without consent, improper hazardous waste management, and dumping

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLversusB. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 128326 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) filed complaints against the City Municipal Council (CMC) of Krishnarajapuram and its former commissioners for discharging untreated sewage in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section

D. SWAMYversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS

2022 INSC 99822 September 2022Dismissed

The appellant, D. Swamy, challenged the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board's (KSPCB) consent to operate a Common Bio‑Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) on the ground that the facility lacked prior environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification as amended. The

TECHI TAGI TARAversusRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.

2017 INSC 98622 September 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that directed State Governments to reconsider the appointments of chairpersons and members of State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and to lay down guidelines for such appointments. The Court held that under the National Green T

ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROLversusCCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED

2019 INSC 78922 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) directed CCL Products (India) Ltd. to furnish three bank guarantees to secure compliance with environmental directions issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. After inspecting the plant and finding violations, the Board invoked the guara

M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 28021 March 2024Directions issued

The petitioners sought a blanket prohibition on the installation of overhead transmission lines for solar power across roughly 99,000 square kilometres in Rajasthan and Gujarat, arguing that such lines threaten the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The Supreme Court had earlier ordered the conversion of

DR. BALRAM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 95020 October 2023Directions issued

Dr. Balram Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the full implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. The Court examined whether the statutes requi

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2011 INSC 49818 July 2011Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a long‑running environmental dispute in which chemical industries in Bichhri, Rajasthan had been ordered in 1996 to pay Rs.37.385 crore for remediation of toxic sludge and to have their plants closed. Despite the judgment, the respondents repeatedly filed interlocutory applications to avoid p

TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDversusSTERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 22018 February 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) could entertain direct appeals (leapfrog appeals) against original orders of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) under the Air and Water Acts, specifically the refusal to renew consent for Sterlite Industries' copper smelter. The Court held

HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 4916 January 2020Disposed off

The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated 23 April 2019 be placed on record so that the Supreme Court's embargo on the environmental clearance (EC) for the Mopa greenfield airport could be lifted. The Court examined whether the EAC had adequ

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 82614 July 2025Dismissed

The appellants filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking to quash a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) and consent for a petrol pump at Khasra No. 109/1/2, alleging violations of environmental and municipal regulations. While the NGT dismissed the application, the appellants appealed to the Supr

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusV. B. R. MENON & OTHERS

2023 INSC 23114 March 2023Disposed off

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Chennai ordered the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to make it mandatory for all petroleum retail outlets to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) before setting up or operating, in addition to directing the installation of vapour recovery systems (VR

PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 84113 September 2023Dismissed

The petitioners sought to overturn a Permanent Lok Adalat order directing the closure of a slaughterhouse in Tonk, alleging the Adalat lacked jurisdiction. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) later issued directions under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, after ins

NAMIT SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA

2012 INSC 39213 September 2012Case Partly allowed

The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which prescribe the eligibility criteria for appointing Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners. The petitioner argued that the provisions were vague, lacked specifi

NOORULLA KHANversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2021 INSC 33013 July 2021Dismissed

The Sandur Gram Panchayat and its chief officer were convicted under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction, holding that the chief officer, as a public servant, was protected by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedur

JOLLY GEORGE AND ANR.versusGEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS.

2023 INSC 36512 April 2023Disposed off

George Elias & Associates, engaged in road works, purchased Hot Mix Plants and obtained an Acknowledgement Certificate under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Act, 2019, as well as "Consent to Establish" from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Their application for a licence to in

V.C. CHINNAPPA GOUDARversusKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ANR.

2015 INSC 96810 March 2015Dismissed

The appellants, who were public servants, were prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. They contended that, as public servants, prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was not obtained. The Supreme Court examine

M. NIZAMUDDINversusM/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 13910 March 2010Disposed off

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. sought to set up a PVC plant in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, importing Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) via a marine terminal and laying pipelines that cross the Uppanar river. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) granted environmental clearance under the 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notific

ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 8599 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steels Ltd. obtained environmental clearance (EC) and consent to establish a steel plant at a specified site in Bokaro, but later shifted the plant 5.3 km away, allegedly encroaching forest land. The Ministry of Environment and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) revoked the EC, leading the

NEETU SOLVENTSversusVINEET NAGAR & ORS.

2026 INSC 4556 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, manufacturers of formaldehyde and its resins, operated units in Rajasthan and Haryana under Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) granted by the respective State Pollution Control Boards (PCBs). The National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered closure of these units for lacking prior Environm

G. SUNDARRAJANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2013 INSC 3146 May 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) amid public opposition, focusing on whether the plant complied with environmental, coastal‑zone, and safety regulations. It held that the project was undertaken under the national nuclear policy reflected in the Atomic Energy Act, 1

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 9615 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The petition challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the accompanying Office Memorandum of 30 January 2025, which altered the regime of environmental clearance for building and construction projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the 2006 Sc

KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD.versusSHRI ANIL V THARTHARE & ORS.

2019 INSC 13123 December 2019Dismissed

Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. undertook a residential redevelopment project in Mumbai. The project’s built‑up area grew from 8,720.32 sq m to 32,395.17 sq m, triggering the need for an Environmental Clearance (EC) under the 2006 EIA Notification, which was granted on 2 May 2013. The appellant later increased the area by

DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEEversusLODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD. ETC.

2025 INSC 9233 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) appealed against a Delhi High Court decision that held it could not levy restitutionary or compensatory damages under s.33A of the Water Act and s.31A of the Air Act, on the ground that such powers amounted to penalties. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, the p

STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.

2019 INSC 7213 July 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) orders that banned rat‑hole coal mining in Meghalaya, directed the State to deposit Rs 100 crore for environmental restoration, and held that all coal extracted after May 2016 vested in the State. The Court held that the NGT

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 7002 August 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a massive illegal mining scandal in Odisha involving 187 iron and manganese ore leases, many of which operated without environmental or forest clearances, exceeded mining plans, or violated statutory provisions. The Court rejected the lease‑holders' claim that the Justice M.B. Shah Commission

STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2013 INSC 2042 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Sterlite Industries obtained environmental clearance and consent orders to set up a copper smelter in Tuticorin in 1995. The Madras High Court ordered its closure, citing lack of a mandatory public hearing, violation of a 25‑km distance condition from an ecologically sensitive area, and an inadequate green‑belt require

M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 10601 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, was ordered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to pay Rs.18 crore as environmental compensation for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents and related violations. The appellant challenged the orders on the ground that it was n

K. GURUPRASAD RAOversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 3971 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition seeking the cancellation of a mining lease and a ban on mining within one kilometre of the 16th‑century Jambunatha Temple, a protected monument in Karnataka. The petition challenged mining activities that were alleged to have caused structural damage to the temple

ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.versusROHIT PRAJAPATI & ORS.

2020 INSC 3261 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Three pharmaceutical units in Ankleshwar began operations without obtaining the prior environmental clearance (EC) mandated by the 1994 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification. The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a 2002 circular allowing defaulting units to obtain an ex‑post‑facto EC, which the Na

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search