Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

66 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 153430 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta alleging that emissions from coke/coal‑using industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) were causing severe atmospheric pollution and damaging the Taj Mahal. Expert reports (NEERI, Varadharajan Committee) establishe

RE BHAVANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD.versusRE BHAVANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD.

1998 INSC 27630 July 1998Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition concerning the discharge of objectionable effluents from Sakthi Sugars Ltd.'s distillery into the Bhavani River, which had become a health and environmental hazard. The High Court had dismissed the petition solely on the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, a dec

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

AKHIL SHARAT GOSEWA SANGHversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 18629 March 2006

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals challenging the grant of an industrial licence to Al‑Kabeer Exports Ltd. for a mechanised slaughter‑house in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the licence violated location prohibitions, environmental standards, the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of C

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

IN RE: BHAYANI RIVER - SAKTHI SUGARS LTD.versus--

1998 INSC 4629 January 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the non‑compliance of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. with directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Board had ordered proper storage, treatment and disposal of effluent, but the company failed to impleme

VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 95228 August 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ under Article 32 filed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum alleging that tanneries in five districts of Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents, contaminating surface and groundwater, rendering 35,000 hectares of agricultural land unfit for cultivation and

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 91327 November 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Public Interest Litigation concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor project, which alleged irregularities and unauthorized release of Rs. 17 crore. The Court had earlier ordered a CBI inquiry and later directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate senior officials. The Director of CBI sub

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

AKHIL BHARAT GOSEVA SANGH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 48925 October 1994Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the controversy surrounding the establishment of a mechanised slaughter house (Alkabeer Abattoir) at Rudraram, Medak district, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner organisations challenged the various permissions granted to the company, arguing that the slaughter house would deplete cattle wealth a

STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.versusCHANDAM MANIHAR SINGH

1999 INSC 44223 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Manipur reconstituted its State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, appointing a Chairman whose three‑year term was to end on 4 May 1998. After the Chairman resigned, Chandam Manihar Singh was nominated on 16 October 1996 to fill the casual vacancy. He w

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

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1987 INSC 26122 September 1987Directions issued

M.C. Mehta, a social worker, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to stop the discharge of untreated tannery effluents into the River Ganga. The Court treated the case as a representative action, issuing notices to industrialists and municipal bodies and hearing evidence that many tanneries at Jajm

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

M.C. MEHTA AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 28120 December 1986Disposed off

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking the closure of Shriram Foods & Fertilizers' hazardous units. During the proceedings oleum gas escaped, prompting the Delhi Legal Aid Board and Delhi Bar Association to file applications for compensation on behalf of victims. The Court examined the scope of Article 3

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

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 151619 December 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta, examined the pollution caused by about 550 tanneries in the eastern fringe of Calcutta that were discharging untreated effluent into the River Ganga. The Court found that the tanneries were operating without consent under the

STATE OF M.P.versusKEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD. AND ORS .

2003 INSC 40519 August 2003Case Partly allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the closure orders issued by a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. for alleged water and air pollution. The High Court held that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE

2003 INSC 49518 September 2003

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32 filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of a Monitoring Committee, examined the Taj Heritage Corridor project undertaken near the Taj Mahal. The Court found that construction and river‑bed reclamation work had commenced without the mandatory clear

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

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 54318 April 1996

The Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking enforcement of the 19 February 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification and challenging the validity of the 18 August 1994 amendment Notification. The petition alleged widespread non‑implementation of the 1991 Notifi

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 18818 March 2004Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether mining activities within a 5 km radius of the Delhi‑Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills cause environmental degradation and whether the earlier order of 6 May 2002 banning such mining should be varied. It held that the ban remains in force until a newly constituted Monitoring Com

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

M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 1917 February 1986Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of Delhi residents challenging two orders that prohibited Shriram Foods & Fertiliser Industries from operating its caustic‑chlorine plant in a densely populated area of Delhi. After a series of oleum‑gas leak

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

CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITIversusSTATE OF U.P AND ORS.

1990 INSC 23013 August 1990Dismissed

The Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti filed a letter alleging that an oil mill and a refinery in the Sarnath area were causing severe air and water pollution, leading to health hazards and ecological damage, and treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. The respondents, including the State of U.P

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

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA

1996 INSC 23713 February 1996Dismissed

The Supreme Court entertained a social‑action writ filed by the Indian Council for Enviro‑Legal Action on behalf of villagers of Bichhri, who suffered severe water, soil and health damage due to untreated effluents and toxic sludge from private chemical industries. The petition sought directions against the Union of In

U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDversusDR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI & ANR.

2008 INSC 141912 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. Pollution Control Board granted conditional consent to Modi Carpets Ltd. to discharge trade effluent, but the company discharged untreated effluent in violation of the consent. The Board filed a complaint under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 against the company and its

M.C. MEHTAversusKAMAL NATH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 32912 May 2000

The Supreme Court revisited a writ petition filed under Article 32 concerning the Mis Span Motel's pollution of the Beas River. The Court affirmed that damages can be awarded for environmental restoration and for victims under the polluter‑pays principle, but held that a pollution fine cannot be imposed without a crimi

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

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 312 January 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest litigation filed by M.C. Mehta seeking relief from the severe pollution of the River Ganga at Kanpur, where 274.5 million litres of untreated sewage were being discharged daily. The petition raised the question of whether a non‑riparian citizen could sue for a public nuis

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusGANESH WOOD PRODUCTS AND ORS. ETC.

1995 INSC 55411 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Himachal Pradesh government's refusal to approve several katha‑manufacturing units after the Industrial Projects Approval and Review Authority (IPARA) had given provisional approvals. The Court held that IPARA’s approvals were merely administrative recommendations and did

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

SUBHASH KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

1991 INSC 39 January 1991Dismissed

Subhash Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron & Steel Co. were polluting the Bokaro river by discharging slurry from their washeries, thereby violating the right to life under Article 21. He also alleged that the State of Bihar and its Pollu

VINEET KUMAR MATHURversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6988 November 1995Disposed off

The petitioner highlighted severe pollution of the Gomti River caused by several industries, including Mohan Meakins Breweries, and the Supreme Court ordered on 15 January 1993 that these units must rectify deficiencies in their effluent treatment plants by 21 March 1993 or cease operations. Mohan Meakins failed to com

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7508 May 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined extensive illegal mining in the Aravalli Hills of Haryana, where numerous mines operated without environmental clearances, rehabilitation plans, or compliance with statutory reclamation requirements, causing severe groundwater depletion and ecological damage. The Court considered earlier orde

U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDversusMODI DISTILLERY & ORS.

1987 INSC 1996 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (the Board) refused consent to Modi Distillery's discharge of trade effluents into the Kali River because its application was incomplete and the unit lacked proper treatment facilities. After repeated notices, the Board lodged a complaint under section 44 of the Water (Preventi

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

SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS.versusDISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS.

2008 INSC 10175 September 2008Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large tract of land in Hyderabad for an integrated infrastructure project, the Financial District, to be implemented by the state nodal agency APllC in partnership with a private company, Emaar. Small landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging it was not for a public pur

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

GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDversusM/S NICOSULF INDUSTRIES & EXPORT PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2008 INSC 13964 December 2008Dismissed

The Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) had granted M/s Nicosulf Industries permission to discharge effluent subject to conditions. It alleged a breach of condition No.4 after a water sample taken on 22‑June‑1989 was found non‑conforming, and filed a complaint through an Assistant Environmental Engineer. The trial c

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

A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD-IIversusPROF. M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.) AND ORS.

2000 INSC 5641 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Andhra Pradesh Government could lawfully exempt a hazardous vegetable‑oil industry from a statutory 10‑km prohibition around the Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar reservoirs, which supply drinking water to Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The State had issued GO 153 granting the exemption

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

PARTHIBAN BLUE METAL ETC.versusTHE MEMBER SECY. T.N. POLLN. CONT. BD. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 881 February 2007Disposed off

The appellants operated nine stone‑crushing units in Trisoolam Village, Tamil Nadu, and were served notices by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for being within 500 metres of a residential area. The appellants contended that the permissible distance had been reduced to 300 metres and that all their units were bey

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