Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the LoEA awards, affirmed the continuing polluter‑pays liability, and modified the High Court order to direct payment of compensation and comprehensive remedial action.

Summary

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 that sought enforcement of the LoEA's award of Rs.2,91,01,278 and further compensation for damages post‑1998. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the polluter‑pays principle, the public trust doctrine, and the government‑pay principle, holding that liability of polluters persists until ecological damage is fully reversed. It affirmed the validity of the LoEA awards, directed the State to pay outstanding compensation and recover amounts from polluters, and issued extensive remedial directives for pollution control, ZLD implementation, and ecological restoration. The Court also emphasized the need for continuous monitoring, stricter enforcement, and a coordinated committee to oversee compliance.

Issues considered

The High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions challenging the LoEA award is legally sound.
Whether the LoEA's award of compensation for pollution beyond 1998 is valid and enforceable.
Whether the polluter‑pays principle imposes a continuing liability on tannery industries until ecological restoration is complete.
Whether the government‑pay principle requires the State to disburse compensation and recover it from polluters.
Whether the tanneries must achieve Zero Liquid Discharge and cease discharging effluents into the Palar River.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to pollution caused by tanneries by discharging untreated or partially treated effluents into the River Palar and surrounding areas; and as regards the correctness of by the High Court dismissing the writ petition against the order of the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) Authority determining a total sum of Rs. 2,91,01,278 as payable to affected individuals/families by the polluters. Headnotes† Environment laws – Pollution

Subjects

VelloreCompensationPolluter pays principleEnvironmentRight to lifePublic Trust DoctrineEcocidePrecautionary principleVellore Citizens Welfare ForumTanneryLeather industriesSustainable DevelopmentRestoration of ecologyResponsibility of GovernmentGovernment pays principleEffluent standardDischarge of untreated or partially treated effluents into the River PalarLoss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) AuthorityPollution by tanneriesPalar River in VelloreEnvironmental damageZero Liquid Discharge- ZLDReverse the damage caused to the ecologyIrreparable ecological damageRight to Healthy EnvironmentThird generation rightsDeeming fiction and Precautionary PrincipleTechniques/methodologies/approaches to reduce the pollution caused by the industriesExtended producer responsibilityEmission standards- Command and control principleRegular impact assessmentEffluent charges/taxPollutant release and transfer register/participatory citizens approachMediterranean Action Plan, 1976Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on industrial emissionsAarhus Convention, 1998

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1265 : 2025 INSC 131

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep.
by its Secretary Mr. R. Rajebdran
v.
The District Collector, Vellore District & Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1280-1281 of 2025)
30 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to pollution caused by tanneries by discharging
untreated or partially treated effluents into the River Palar and
surrounding areas; and as regards the correctness of the order
passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition against
the order of the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of
Compensation) Authority determining a total sum of Rs. 2,91,01,278
as payable to affected individuals/families by the polluters.

Headnotes†
Environment laws – Pollution by tanneries – Compensation –
Pollution caused to the Palar River in Vellore by tanning
industries – In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, this Court
awarded compensation to the victims of the environmental
damage in Vellore district and passed directions for restoration
of the ecology – PIL by the appellant alleging that no scheme
has been implemented for the reversal of the damage caused
to the ecology and environment and that no compensation has
been paid for the period from 31.12.1998 – During pendency,
directions were issued to the Loss of Ecology (Prevention
and Payment of Compensation) Authority-LoEA to assess
damage caused beyond 1998 and also decide the applications
of victims for compensation beyond 1998 – LoEA passed the
order and award determining a total sum of Rs. 2,91,01,278/-
as compensation payable to 1377 affected individuals by the
same 547 polluters as identified in the original award – Writ
petition thereagainst by the All India Skin and Hide Tanners
and Merchants Association-AISHTMA – High Court dismissed
the PIL and disposed of the writ by AISTHMA – Separate writ
petition by AISHTMA dismissed by the High Court holding
* Author
1266 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that there was no infirmity or illegality in the report and award
passed by the LoEA – Interference:
Held: Award of the LoEA pursuant to Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum,
clearly mentioned that the liability of the industries continues until
the damage caused to the ecology and environment by pollution
is reversed – Industries have taken steps to achieve Zero Liquid
Discharge-ZLD and to reverse the damage caused to the ecology,
deposited certain sums – However, the same have not been
achieved till date and still remain a work in progress – As such
the industries will remain responsible for the further and continuing
pollution caused to the ecology – Polluting industries are liable to
reverse the damage to the environment and ecology as long as the
tanneries continue to pollute the environment – At the same time,
the Government has not implemented the scheme for reversal and
restoration of ecology till date, despite the LoEA having drafted the
same in 2001 itself – Details of the affected individuals/families
having not been ascertained, cannot be a reason to withhold
the compensation amount payable to the affected individuals/
families, until the damage caused to the ecology is reversed – By
applying the Government Pay Principle, the Government to pay
compensation to the affected individuals/families and recover the
same from the polluters, until the damage caused to the ecology is
fully reversed – Order passed by the High Court confirming award
passed by LoEA upheld – Directions issued to the stakeholders
to curb the pollution and the sand mining in Vellore. [Paras 110,
113, 115, 116]

Doctrine/Principle – Public Trust Doctrine – Meaning:
Held: Doctrine of Public Trust asserts that vital natural resources
such as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the
State for the benefit and enjoyment of the public – Doctrine places
a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them from privatization
or exploitation that compromises public interests – It imposes
restrictions that resources must remain accessible for public use,
cannot be sold for private gain, and must be preserved in their
natural state – Courts internationally, have extended its scope to
protect wetlands, riparian forests, and ecologically fragile lands –
This evolving interpretation reflects the doctrine’s relevance in
maintaining the balance between sustainable development and
environmental conservation. [Para 61]
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1267

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Doctrine/Principle – Doctrine of Sustainable Development –
Meaning:
Doctrine of sustainable development was evolved to strike a
balance between economic advancement and environmental
safeguards – It envisions development that can be sustained
by nature/environment – While the advancement of industries
and infrastructure is indispensable for fostering employment and
generating revenue, such growth cannot come at the cost of
irreparable ecological damage. [Para 63]

Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to life – Right to Healthy
Environment – Explanation:
Held: Right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy, pollution
free environment, which are essential for the full enjoyment of life –
Concept of ‘right to healthy environment’ is recognised as part of
the ‘right to life’ u/Art. 21 and thereby has also recognised the ‘right
to clean drinking water’ as a fundamental right – Environmental
rights, which encompass a group of collective rights, are now
described as “third generation” rights – Thus, the State, so as to
sustain its claim of functioning for the welfare of its citizens, is
bound to regulate water supply by safeguarding, maintaining and
restoring the water bodies to protect the right to healthy water and
prevent health hazards. [Para 64]

Principle/Doctrine – Polluter pays principle – Extent of
liability – Deeming fiction and Precautionary Principle:
Held: “Polluters pay principle” is followed for fastening liability on the
polluter for the proportionate damage caused to the environment,
resulting in violation of right to clean and healthy environment as
guaranteed u/Art. 21 – When an activity is inherently hazardous
or dangerous, the individual or entity engaging in such activity
bears absolute liability for any harm caused, regardless of the care
exercised – Polluting industries, thus, are under an obligation to
fully compensate for the damage caused to affected communities –
Polluter Pays Principle extended beyond compensating victims
of pollution – It included the cost of reversing environmental
degradation – They are required to undertake all necessary remedial
measures to remove pollutants and restore the environment – Thus,
the industries are liable to not only compensate but also bear the
costs for restoring the river – Remedial action would not stop
1268 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

at restoration, but is a continuous process, to sustain the river,
pollution free and fresh cause of action would commence again if
the industries and the local bodies fail in their duty – When there
is a violation in compliance with the environmental laws, be it by
engaging in activities directly involved in causing pollution or failure
to take steps to curb the pollution and restore the environment
and acts in a manner detrimental to the environment, then the
deeming fiction of polluting the environment becomes applicable
and the polluter is not only liable to payment of compensation
but also to restore the environment – State must endeavour to
identify the industries and activities which impacts or can impact
the environment before permitting such activities as there is a
possibility that the damage could not only be irreversible but
also the effects of such damage could be far more threatening
the human race than the commercial benefits arising out of such
activity. [Paras 71, 73, 77]

Environmental laws – Pollution related damage – Determination
of Compensation – Government Pay Principle vis-a-vis
responsibility of the Government:
Held: Polluters bear the absolute liability for the harm they cause
to the environment – For quantifying the extent of damage, unlike
tangible property damage, the harm inflicted upon ecosystems not
easily measurable in monetary terms – Also, the impact on local
communities, particularly their livelihoods, is difficult to assess –
Loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural resources, and long-term
socio-economic consequences extend beyond the realm of
financial valuation – Thus, while the liability is clear, the process
of determining an equitable compensation amount is fraught with
challenges, as it must account for both the tangible and intangible
damage inflicted on the environment and the affected communities
– Normally, the government cannot be held liable for the action
of third parties – However, the State, which is entrusted with the
duty to protect not only its citizens but also the environment,
cannot absolve itself from its failure in implementing the laws and
allowing the activities that continue in violation of the laws – While
polluters bear absolute liability to compensate for environmental
damage, the Governments (both Union and State) share an equally
significant responsibility to prevent environmental degradation and
ensure the implementation of effective remedial action – Thus, it is
equally important to recognize the role of the Government and other
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1269

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

regulatory bodies as well to impose upon them, a responsibility
with penalizing consequences in ensuring strict compliance with the
orders and directions given by the Courts as well as the applicable
environmental laws and principles. [Paras 79, 82, 83]
Environmental law – Pollution – Techniques/methodologies/
approaches to reduce the pollution caused by the industries –
Extended producer responsibility, emission standards-
Command and control principle, regular impact assessment,
effluent charges/tax, and pollutant release and transfer register/
participatory citizens approach – Explained. [Para 84]

Environmental laws – Concept of ecocide – Definition:
Held: Ecocide is an 'unlawful or wanton acts committed with
knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and
either widespread or long-term damage to the environment' – Acts
such as the pollution of rivers with untreated sewage, illegal sand
mining, large-scale deforestation etc. fall under this definition –
Evironmental damage occurring in Vellore District could even be
categorized as ecocide. [Para 92]

Case Law Cited
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others [1996]
Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647 : AIR 1996 SC 2715; M.C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 : (1997) 1 SCC
388; Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [2024] 2 SCR 1121 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 230; Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P.
[2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC 549; Tirupur Dyeing Factory
Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn. [2009]
14 SCR 1051 : (2009) 9 SCC 737; M.C.Mehta v. Union of India
[2009] 9 SCR 998 : (2009) 6 SCC 142; Subash Kumar v. State of
Bihar [1991] 1 SCR 5 : (1991) 1 SCC 598 : 1991 SCC OnLine SC
42; State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2000] 3 SCR
301 : (2000) 9 SCC 572; A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof.
M.V. Naidu and Others [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 249 : (2001) 2 SCC
62 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1679; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 1 SCR 507 : (1996) 3 SCC
212; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 389 : (2000)
6 SCC 213 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 963; M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India [1988] SCR 2 530; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212; Bajri Lease
1270 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 16 SCC
581; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In re v. Union of India [2022]
17 SCR 1122 : (2022) 10 SCC 544 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 716;
Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India [2005] 1 SCR
115 : (2005) 13 SCC 186; Tata Housing Development Company
Ltd v. Aalok Jagga and Others [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2019) 14
SCALE 641; Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Nicosulf Indst.
& Exports Pvt Ltd [2008] 17 SCR 27 : (2009) 2 SCC 171; U.P.
Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Others
[2000] 2 SCR 566 : (2000) 3 SCC 745 – referred to.
The Perundurai Citizens v. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary, Anna Salai Chennai, 2005 (1) CTC
721; People Health and Development Council, represented by its
Secretary, Erode-5 v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 2005 SCC
OnLine Mad 110 – referred to.
Court on its own motion v. State of HP, 2014 SCC Online NGT 1;
Saloni Ailawadi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine NGT 69; Adil
Ansari v. M/S Gupta Exports and Ors., Original Application No.
220/2019 NGT; Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Another v. Union
of India & Ors., WP (CIVIL) No. 375/2012 Principal Bench,
NGT – referred to.
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua [2018] ICJ Rep 15; United States v.
BP Exploration &amp; Prod., Inc. (In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
“Deepwater Horizon”), 21 F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. La. 2014);
Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador de la Provincia de
Buenos Aires, Expediente No. 221-98-RA (Corte Constitucional
de Ecuador, 1998); Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador,
Expediente No 1314 (Juzgado decimo primero de lo civil de
Pichincga, April 15, 1998) – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Mondal, N., Saxena, V. and Singh, V. (2005) Impact of Pollution
due to Tanneries on Groundwater Regime. Current; Science, 88,
1988-1994; Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences –
Tannery process and its environment impacts a case study : Vellore
District, Tamil Nadu ISSN::0974-2115; A review on Tannery Pollution
in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu reported in Research Journal of
Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences ISSN:0975-8585;
Environmental Impact of leather Industrial Pollution on Agricultural
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1271

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Production in Vellore District Journal of Environmental Impact and
Management Policy – ISSN: 2799-113X; Sullivan, M. (1996). Chilean
environmental law. Comparative Environmental Law, 1. CHL-16
(Nicholas A. Robinson ed., 1996) – referred to.

List of Websites
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/Jun/16/
perundurai-becomes-capital-of-cancer-in-erodedistrict-1829072.
html

List of Acts
Revenue Recovery Act, 1890; Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974; Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; Hazardous and Other
Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Environmental Conservation
Act, 1989; Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

List of Keywords
Vellore; Compensation; Polluter pays principle; Environment;
Right to life; Public Trust Doctrine, Ecocide; Precautionary
principle; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum; Tannery; Leather
industries; Sustainable Development; Restoration of ecology;
Responsibility of Government; Government pays principle;
Effluent standard; Discharge of untreated or partially treated
effluents into the River Palar; Loss of Ecology (Prevention and
Payment of Compensation) Authority; Pollution by tanneries; Palar
River in Vellore; Environmental damage; Zero Liquid Discharge-
ZLD; Reverse the damage caused to the ecology; Irreparable
ecological damage; Right to Healthy Environment; Third generation
rights; Deeming fiction and Precautionary Principle; Techniques/
methodologies/approaches to reduce the pollution caused by the
industries; Extended producer responsibility; Emission standards-
Command and control principle; Regular impact assessment;
Effluent charges/tax; Pollutant release and transfer register/
participatory citizens approach; Mediterranean Action Plan, 1976;
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and the Council
on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control);
Aarhus Convention, 1998.
1272 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1280-1281
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos. 8335 of 2008 and WP No.
19017 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Amit Gupta, Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Arun Singh (for M/S.
Mitter & Mitter Co.), Syed Ahmed Saud, Daanish Ahmed Syed, Mohd.
Parvez Dabas, Revanta Solanki, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Aqib Baig,
Mohd. Shahib (for M/s. Shakil Ahmad Syed), Advs. for the Appellant.
T. Mohan, Sr. Adv., Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Tushar
Nair, Anirudh Anand, Punishk Handa, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh,
Syed Ahmed Saud, Daanish Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvez Dabas,
Revanta Solanki, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Aqib Baig, Mohd. Shahib
(for M/s. Shakil Ahmad Syed), Ghanshyam Joshi, Saurabh Mishra,
Shrimay Mishra, Rakesh Chander, Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F. Philip,
Karamveer Singh Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

Leave granted. Heard all the parties and also perused the materials
placed before us, including status reports / affidavits / responses
filed by them. For the sake of clarity and better understanding, this
judgment has been divided into the following heads:

SL. HEADS PARAGRAPHS
NO.

I PREFATORY NOTE 02

II RELIEF SOUGHT 03 – 04
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1273

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

III FACTUAL OVERVIEW 05 – 17

A GENESIS OF THE LITIGATION 05 – 06

B VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM 07 – 08
CASE

C AFTERMATH OF VELLORE CITIZENS 09 – 17
WELFARE FORUM JUDGMENT

IV RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND 18
AFFIDAVITS / REPORTS FILED BY
THE AUTHORITIES

V CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 19 – 59

VI ANALYSIS 60 – 91.1

A BASIC PRINCIPLES 60 – 64

B POLLUTION CAUSED BY TANNERIES 65 – 66

C CURRENT STATUS OF POLLUTION 67 – 70

D LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION 71 – 73

E DEEMING FICTION AND 74 – 78
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

F DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION 79 – 81

G GOVERNMENT PAY PRINCIPLE 82 – 83
VIS-À-VIS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT

H REDUCTION OF POLLUTION 84 – 87

I PROVISIONS OF THE WATER ACT 88 – 90

VII ECOCIDE 92

VIII DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 93 – 113

IX CONCLUSION 114

X RESULT AND DIRECTIVES 115 – 118
1274 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

I. PREFATORY NOTE
2. Nature and its elements are worshipped as Gods since time
immemorial. Our forefathers knew the importance of preserving
the environment both for their own well- being and for the benefit
of future generations. However, over time, human greed has led
us to forget this wisdom, treating nature as expendable at our
expense and that of future generations. The degradation of the
natural resources and pollutions of different kinds have a cascading
effect on the environment, which now is a global issue and poses a
threat to the very existence of our planet. Such degradation is the
catalyst for the drastic climatic changes and challenges that we are
facing now. The pollution and depletion of water resources, more
particularly groundwater, is a foreseeable threat to all living beings.
India produces 13 percent of the world’s leather and the leather
market in India is valued at approximately Rs.40,000 crores1. It is a
key foreign exchange earning sector for India being the 2nd largest
global exporter and provides employment to lakhs. Tannery clusters
are often located in areas with limited opportunities for livelihood.
Not only does this industry contribute significantly to the national
economy, but the States of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
and Punjab also have heavy economic dependencies on it. Despite
its economic importance, a heavy price is being paid by the residents
of areas surrounding tanneries and the workers employed therein,
particularly, in terms of health impact, land degradation and an overall
decreased quality of life. For years, environmental degradation has
been rampant and it is time that a final lid be put to such activities
that degrade the environment in violation of law. While acknowledging
the economic importance of the industry, this Court shall not be a
mute spectator to the environmental consequences and the loss of
life and health caused by the waste generated by tanneries. There
is an urgent need to strike a balance between competing interests,
evolving and implementing sustainable solutions. Development
which threatens the existence will serve no purpose. The sustainable
development is an imminent requirement. The policies of the States
and the actions must thrive towards striking a balance between socio-
economic development and preservation of the natural resources for
the benefit of the future generations.

1 CLRI Report
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1275

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

II. RELIEF SOUGHT
3. The challenge made in these appeals (arising out of SLP Nos.23633-
23634 of 2010) is to the common order dated 28.01.2010 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras2, in WP Nos. 8335 of
2008 and 19017 of 2009, whereby, the High Court dismissed the
first writ petition filed by the appellant herein viz., Vellore District
Environment Monitoring Committee and disposed of the latter writ
petition filed by the appellant viz., All India Skin and Hide Tanners
and Merchants Association3. Besides, the AISHTMA has preferred
an appeal (arising from SLP(C)No.26608 of 2011) against the
order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the High Court in dismissing
W.P.No.22683 of 2009 filed by them.
4. For ease of reference, the reliefs sought in the aforesaid writ petitions
are quoted below:

W.P.No.8335 of 2008:
To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure
that the compensation payable to all affected individuals/families as
contained in the report and Award dated 07.03.2001 passed by the
Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) Authority4
for the State of Tamil Nadu is paid and all industries in default
being subject orders of closure and initiate proceedings under the
Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, for recovery of compensation and that
compensation be assessed for the further loss caused to individual/
families from 31.12.1998 till date and implementation of appropriate
scheme for reversal of damage to ecology and infrastructure be
effected within a reasonable time frame and to ensure that there
are no discharges from any tanneries in and around Ambur and
Vaniyambadi land/water body.

W.P.No.19017 of 2009:
To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order
passed by the respondent / LoEA, dated 05.05.2009 with regard

2 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
3 For short, “the AISHTMA”
4 For short, “the LoEA”
1276 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the assessment of damage to ecology in Vellore District beyond
1998 and quash the same.

W.P.No.22683 of 2009:
To issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the
award and report for Vellore District, dated 24.08.2009 passed by
the respondent / LoEA and quash the same.

III. FACTUAL OVERVIEW

(A) GENESIS OF THE LITIGATION
5. Vellore District is one of the oldest and largest Districts in Tamil
Nadu lying on the banks of River Palar. Palar River is the source
of drinking water for 30 towns and 50 villages along its banks. This
river which was celebrated in literature, poetry, music, is now sullied
by the operation of industries, especially, the tanning industry, which
has been discharging effluents and dumping solid waste directly
into the river and its channels, thereby making it unfit for drinking or
agricultural purposes. Tanning industries which are the main source
of income for the Vellore District, convert animal hides and skins
into leather. Around 45% of the total tanneries in India are located in
Tamil Nadu. More than 600 tanneries are situated in various clusters
of Vaniyambadi, Ambur, Ranipet, Pernambut in the Vellore District.
Though these industries have significant socio-economic impacts
through employment and earnings, they have gained a negative
image in society due to the pollution they generate.
6. Leather processing involves a series of unit operations, including
pre-tanning, tanning, and post-tanning/finishing. At each stage,
various chemicals are used, and a variety of materials are expelled,
in addition to 35 - 40 litres of water used per kilogram of hide
processed. Moreover, excessive amounts of chemicals are used in
treatment drums, and it has been reported that 50% of the chemicals
used in these processes become wastewater or sludge. The tanning
process is almost wholly a wet process that consumes high amount
of water, estimated at 34 - 56 of water per ton of hides or skin
processed with 85% of the total water consumed being discharged
as wastewater. Processed water consumption and consequently
wastewater effluent discharge varies greatly between tanneries,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1277

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

depending on the processes involved, raw materials, and products.
A survey5 reports that tannery wastewater is highly polluted in terms
of suspended solids, nitrogen, sulphate, sulphide, chloride, Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and
chromium. The tanning industries have been operating with little or
no pollution control for more than a century. It was only after 1980
that the treatment of the tannery wastewater was carried out6.

(B) VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM CASE
7. Highlighting the pollution caused by untreated effluents discharged
by tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu into
the River Palar, which is posing a great threat to the ecosystem
and resulting in the non-availability of potable water in the area,
a Non-Governmental Organization viz., Vellore Citizens Welfare
Forum filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(C)No.914 of 1991
before this Court, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents therein viz., Union of India and the State of Tamil
Nadu, to immediately pay adequate compensation to the victims of
pollution and to those who lost their lives, food crops, vegetation,
trees, agricultural land, wells and suffered severe hardship due to
irresponsible and negligent act of polluting tanneries and recover
the amount to be paid in compensation to the affected people from
the polluting tanneries. By judgment dated 28.08.19967, the said writ
petition was disposed of by this Court with the following directions:
“1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority
under S.3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and
shall confer on the said authority all the powers necessary
to deal with the situation created by the tanneries and other
polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The authority
shall be headed by a retired judge of the High Court and
it may have other members preferably with expertise in
the field of pollution control and environment protection
to be appointed by the Central Government. The Central

5 [Mondal, N., Saxena, V. and Singh, V. (2005) Impact of Pollution due to Tanneries on Groundwater
Regime. Current Science, 88, 1988-1994]
6 Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences - Tannery process and its environment impacts a
case study : Vellore District, Tamil Nadu ISSN::0974-2115
7 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others, AIR 1996 SC 2715 : 1996 (5) SCC 647
1278 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Government shall confer on the said authority the powers
to issue directions under 5.5 of the Environment Act and
for taking measures with respect to the matters referred
to in Cls. (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of subsection
(2) of Section 3. The Central Government shall constitute
the authority before September 30, 1996.
2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government
shall implement the “precautionary principle” and the
“polluter pays” principle. The authority shall, with the
help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to
the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/
environment in the affected areas and shall also identify
the individuals/families who have suffered because of the
pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid
to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further
determine the compensation to be recovered from the
polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment.
The authority shall lay down just and fair procedure for
completing the exercise.
3. The authority shall compute the compensation under
two heads namely, for reversing the ecology and for
payment to individuals. A statement showing the total
amount to be recovered, the names of the polluters from
whom the amount is to be recovered, the amount to be
recovered from each polluter, the persons to whom the
compensation is to be paid and the amount payable to
each of them shall be forwarded to the Collector/District
Magistrates of the area concerned. The Collector/District
Magistrate shall recover the amount from the polluters, if
necessary, as arrears of land revenue. He shall disburse
the compensation awarded by the authority to the affected
persons/families.
4. The authority shall direct the closure of the industry
owned/managed by a polluter in case he evades or refused
to pay the compensation awarded against him. This shall
be in addition to the recovery from him as arrears of land
revenue.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1279

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

5. An industry may have set up the necessary pollution
control device at present but it shall be liable to pay for
the past pollution generated by the said industry which has
resulted in the environmental degradation and suffering
to the residents of the area.
6. We impose pollution fine of Rupees 10,000/- each on
all the tanneries in the districts of North Arcot Ambedkar,
Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R.
The fine shall be paid before October 31, 1996 in the office
of the Collector/District Magistrate concerned. We direct the
Collectors/District Magistrates of these districts to recover
the fines from the tanneries. The money shall be deposited,
along with the compensation amount recovered from the
polluters, under a separate head called “Environment
Protection Fund” and shall be utilised for compensating
the affected persons as identified by the authorities and
also for restoring the damaged environment. The pollution
fine is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The tanneries which fail to deposit the amount by October
31, 1996 shall be closed forthwith and shall also be liable
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
7. The authority, in consultation with expert bodies like
NEERI, Central Board, Board shall frame scheme/schemes
for reversing the damage caused to the ecology and
environment by pollution in the State of Tamil Nadu. The
scheme/schemes so framed shall be executed by the
State Government under the supervision of the Central
Government. The expenditure shall be met from the
“Environment Protection Fund” and from other sources
provided by the State Government and the Central
Government.
8. We suspend the closure orders in respect of all the
tanneries in the five districts of North Arcot Ambedkar,
Erode Periyar, Dindigul Anna, Trichi and Chengai M.G.R.
We direct all the tanneries in the above five districts to set
up CETPs or Individual Pollution Control Devices on or
before November 30, 1996. Those connected with CETPs
shall have to install in addition the primary devices in the
1280 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

tanneries. All the tanneries in the above five districts shall
obtain the consent of the Board to function and operate
with effect from December 15, 1996. The tanneries who
are refused consent or who fail to obtain the consent of
the Board by December 15, 1996 shall be closed forthwith.
9. We direct the Superintendent of Police and the Collector/
District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the district
concerned to close all those tanneries with immediate
effect who fail to obtain the consent from the Board by the
said date. Such tanneries shall not be reopened unless
the authority permits them to do so. It would be open to
the authority to close such tanneries permanently or to
direct their relocation.
10. The Government order No.213 dated March 30, 1989
shall be enforced forthwith. No new industry listed in
Annexure-1 to the Notification shall be permitted to be set
up within the prohibited area. The authority shall review
the cases of all the industries which are already operating
in the prohibited area and it would be open to authority to
direct the relocation of any of such industries.
11. The standards stipulated by the Board regarding total
dissolved solids (TDS) and approved by the NEERI shall
be operative. All the tanneries and other industries in the
State of Tamil Nadu shall comply with the said standards.
The quality of ambient waters has to be maintained through
the standards stipulated by the Board.”
8. In Paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court further observed
as follows:
“We have issued comprehensive directions for achieving
the end result in this case. It is not necessary for this Court
to monitor these matters any further. We are of the view
that the Madras High Court would be in a better position to
monitor these matters hereinafter. We, therefore, request
the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to constitute
a Special Bench “Green Bench” to deal with this case
and other environmental matters. We make it clear that it
would be open to the Bench to pass any appropriate order/
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1281

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

orders keeping in view the directions issued by us. We may
mention that “Green Benches” are already functioning in
Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and some other High Courts.
We direct the Registry of this Court to send the records
to the registry of the Madras High Court within one week.
The High Court shall treat this matter as a petition under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India and deal with it in
accordance with law and also in terms of the directions
issued by us. We give liberty to the parties to approach
the High Court as and when necessary.”

(C) AFTERMATH OF VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM
JUDGMENT
9. On transfer, the case was re-numbered as W.P.No.13433 of 1996
and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Loss of Ecology
(Prevention and Payment of Compensation) Authority8 was constituted
by the Government of India, vide its Notification in S.O.671 (E), dated
30.9.1996 with the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Bhaskaran, a retired
Judge of the High Court, as its Chairperson, inter alia directing to
assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and
also to identify the individuals/families who had suffered because
of the pollution and determine the compensation payable to them.
10. By Award dated 07.03.2001, the LoEA identified 29,193 affected
individuals /families and determined the compensation at
Rs.26,82,02,328/- for the period from 12.08.1991 to 31.12.1998 in
respect of 15,164.96 hectares across 186 villages in 7 Taluks of
Vellore District. Further, it was made clear that the liability of the
polluting industries to compensate the affected individuals/families
would continue beyond 31.12.1998 until the damage caused to the
ecology and environment by pollution is reversed.
11. Subsequently, the aforesaid award, particularly with reference
to apportionment of compensation, was challenged by some of
the aggrieved parties in W.P.No.512 of 2002; and the validity of
the Notification dated 30.09.1996, appointing the LoEA was also
challenged by the AISHTMA by filing W.P.No.7015 of 2000. The High

8 For short, “the LoEA”
1282 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court disposed of the said writ petitions by order dated 22.03.2002,
the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“This matter relates to the polluters-paying the liability.
Pursuant to the enquiries made by the authority, which
has been constituted consequent to the judgment rendered
by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum
Vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, amounts have
been determined, and this writ petition has been filed
by the Association consisting of 334 tanners. Now, all
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submit that they are not contesting the quantum fixed
by the authority, but because of the financial strain, the
entire amount cannot be deposited in lump sum. Facility to
pay in installments is, therefore, pleaded. The Number of
tanneries as stated above are 334, of which 151 tanneries
are smaller ones. Likewise, there are other two categories
also. Having regard to the plea made to facilitate the
payment in installments and having regard to the facts
and circumstances and also taking the welfare of the
affected parties into consideration, as the challenge now
ends, because of the acceptance of the persons manning
tanneries to pay the amount as determined by the authority,
the installments as fixed as follows:
Tanners (151 in number) who are ordered to pay up
to Rs.2 lakhs, have to pay the amount in a bi-monthly
installments of Rs.21,22,672/- each. For the category,
whose liability is between Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs (159
in number), the amount shall be payable in 12 bi-monthly
installments of Rs.88,35,675/- each. The third category
(24 in number), whose liability is over and above Rs.20
lakhs shall pay the amount in 18 bi-monthly installments
of Rs.96,37,863/- each. The above schedule is effective
from 1st April 2002 and the first of such payment shall be
made on or before l0th April 2002, and every bi-monthly
installment shall be made after two months thereof, for
instance, on or before 10th June 2002, and so on. It is
made clear that in default of payment of even one bi-
monthly installment, the Collector shall be entitled to realize
the balance amount in lump sum from the concerned
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1283

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

defaulters. It is needless to mention that this arrangement
facilitating the payment in installments is in modification
of the earlier order passed on 22.1.2002. The writ petition
is disposed of accordingly.”
12. Thereafter, the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum preferred WP
No.23291 of 2006 for a mandamus directing the Ministry of
Environment and Forest and the State of Tamil Nadu to make the
LoEA a permanent body for the State of Tamil Nadu and to appoint
a Managing Committee, Chairperson and members to the same.
On 20.12.2007, when the said writ petition came up for hearing, the
High Court passed the following order:
“Learned counsel appearing for the Loss of Ecology
Authority states that the Authority will consider all the
applications filed before the cut-off-date, which are pending
as well as the applications which are filed after the cut-off-
date and decide them in accordance with law and grant
compensation wherever the case is made out.
Adj to 02.1.2008 to consider the report of the Loss of
Ecology Authority relating to location of the hazardous
units covered under G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 30.3.1989.”
13. In the meanwhile, alleging that no scheme has been implemented for
the reversal of the damage caused to the ecology and environment
and that no compensation has been paid for the period from
31.12.1998, the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee
filed W.P.No.8335 of 2008 as a Public Interest Litigation. Along with
the said writ petition, a Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.1 of 2008
was also filed praying to direct the LoEA to close down all industries
that have not complied with the report and Award dated 07.03.2001,
pending disposal of the writ petition. The High Court passed the
following order, on 10.04.2008 in the said miscellaneous petition:
“(i) The Authority shall make enquiries as to whether the
polluters have complied with the condition after 1999 as
per the award and fix the compensation payable within
four months.
(ii)The Authority shall assess the damage caused to the
ecology since 1999.
1284 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii)The Authority shall frame a scheme for reversal of the
damage to ecology within eight weeks and issue the same
to the District Collector, who is directed to implement the
scheme.
(iv)The District Collector shall recover the compensation
as assessed by the earlier order from the polluters and
pay the same to the affected parties and shall file a status
report into this Court. The District Collector shall also
strictly and expeditiously comply with the scheme framed
and the directions of the Authority.”
14. Seeking to vacate the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2008 passed in
MP.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.8335 of 2008, the AISHTMA filed M.P.No.2
of 2008, in which, the High Court inter alia directed the LoEA to
hear the AISHTMA before proceeding with the exercise directed in
the order dated 10.04.2008. The High Court further clarified that the
said directions should not be construed by the LoEA as conclusive
findings, but should be taken up only to enable it to hold / conduct
an enquiry. Thereafter, upon issuing due notice to all the parties,
the LoEA passed the order dated 05.05.2009 assessing the damage
caused by the tanning industry to the ecology beyond 1998 in the
Vellore District. Aggrieved by the same, the AISHTMA preferred
WP.No.19017 of 2009 to quash the said order dated 05.05.2009.
15. Consequently, the LoEA passed the order and award dated 24.08.2009,
determining a total sum of Rs.2,91,01,278/- as compensation payable
to 1377 affected individuals by the same 547 polluters as identified
in the original award dated 07.03.2001. Challenging the same, the
AISHTMA preferred W.P.No.22683 of 2009 before the High Court.
16. After hearing all the parties, the High Court passed the common
order on 08.02.2010 in WP.Nos.8335 of 2008 and 19017 of 2009
and the operative portion of the same reads as follows:
“18. In view of the above stated reasons, we do not find
any reason to entertain W.P.No.8335 of 2008 and therefore,
the same is liable only to be dismissed. Accordingly,
W.P.No.8335 of 2008 is dismissed and the consequential
proceedings initiated and the order dated 5.5.2009 passed
by the third respondent therein viz., the Loss of Ecology
(Prevention & Payment of Compensation) Authority,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1285

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition, also
stand quashed. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.8335
of 2008, we do not propose to go into various other
aspects argued on either side in respect of the other writ
petition in W.P.No.19017 of 2009, since by the dismissal of
W.P.No.8335 of 2008, the impugned order in W.P.No.19017
of 2009 is already held to be invalid. With this observation,
W.P.No.19017 of 2009 stands disposed of….”
By separate order dated 08.02.2010, WP No.22683 of 2009 filed by
the AISHTMA came to be dismissed by the High Court, observing
that there was no infirmity or illegality in the report and award passed
by the LoEA on 24.08.2009.
17. Being dissatisfied with the orders dated 08.02.2010 so passed by the
High Court, the appellants are before us with the present appeals.

IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND AFFIDAVITS/REPORTS
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES
18. These matters were listed before this Court right from 2010 and
various directions have been passed from time to time and in
compliance of the same, the authorities have filed affidavits/ reports
then and there, to which, the contesting parties filed their respective
replies. For effective adjudication of the issue involved herein, we
may state the relevant orders and the affidavits / reports filed by the
parties, which read as under:
18.1. Keeping in view the fact that the High Court had passed
order as early as in 1998 for payment of compensation and
the directions given by this court from time to time, this Court
by order dated 20.02.20139, directed the State Government

9 We have heard Shri T. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned
Additional Advocate Genera1 for the State of Tami1 Nadu and Shri Rajagopalan, learned senior advocate
for the petitioners in the connected special leave petition. We have also perused supplementary affidavit
dated 19.02.2013 of Shri P. Sankar, Collector, Vellore District, which reveals that a sum of Rs. 4.48
crores is still to be paid to the farmers.
Keeping in view the fact that the High Court had passed order as early as in 1998 for payment of
compensation and the directions given by this Court from time to time, we direct the State Government
to pay the amount of Rs.4.48 crores to the farmers within a period of eight weeks from today.
For consideration of other issues, the cases are adjourned to 17.04.2013.
It is needless to say that the State Government shall be free to recover the amount from the defaulter
tanneries.
1286 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to pay the amount of Rs.4.48 crores to the farmers within a
period of eight weeks and recover the same from the defaulting
tanneries.
18.2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.02.2013, the
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment &
Forest Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, in his supplementary
affidavit dated 29.11.2013 stated that total compensation
amount to be collected from the 547 tanneries as determined
by the LoEA vide two awards (Rs.26.82 + Rs.2.91 crores) was
29.73 crores; the amount to be collected from the tanneries
for reversal of ecology was Rs.3.66 crores; the total amount
recovered as on 22.08.2013 was Rs.27.67 crores; and thus,
there was a balance of Rs.5.72 crores, out of which, Rs.4.85
crores were recoverable from the polluting units; after taking
earnest steps through the revenue machinery, Rs.1.13 crores
were collected and 63 tanneries cleared their balance; and
as a result, the remaining amount to be collected is Rs.3.72
crores. The affidavit further proceeds to state that out of
547 tanneries, 359 tanneries cleared their balance, 168
tanneries partially paid their dues and the amount due from
20 tanneries could not be collected in view of the court stay
order, closure of tanneries running in the rented premises,
bank attachments, and liquidation proceedings; however,
the Tahsildars were instructed to invoke Revenue Recovery
Act and take qualitative steps to identify the defaulters and
collect the balance amount. It was also stated that in order to
comply with the order dated 20.02.2013, the Government by
G.O(Ms)No.57, Environment and Forests (EC.1) Department,
dated 19.04.2013, sanctioned an advance sum of Rs.2.77
crores and disbursed the same along with sum of Rs.1.71
crores collected by the District Administration, to the affected
farmers and that, the remaining amount of Rs.1.15 crores is
available with the Divisional officers and the same would be
disbursed as and when the issues are settled either through
court of law or out of court.
18.3. This Court by order dated 05.08.2014, directed the TNPCB
and its authorities to file an affidavit within a week giving the
time frame by which they intended to stop the pollution of
Palar River. Further, liberty was given to the TNPCB to take
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1287

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

necessary action against the industries causing pollution in the
river and if required, to seal such industries. Pursuant to the
aforesaid order dated 05.08.2014, the TNPCB filed a detailed
status of 8 CETPs and 26 IETPs in the Vellore District by its
report dated 13.08.2014. However, this Court by order dated
09.09.201410 directed the TNPCB to make fresh inspection
regarding the pollution of the Palar River and file a status
report within four weeks. In compliance of the same, the
TNPCB carried out inspection of six stretches of Palar River
and filed its report on 28.10.2014.
18.4. By order dated 20.02.201511, the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), New Delhi, was impleaded as a party Respondent to
the present appeals and was directed to inspect River Palar
and the industries, municipalities and other sources discharging
effluents into the river at various locations of the Vellore District
and submit a report, analysis, along with maps.
18.5. Subsequently, by order dated 07.04.2015, this Court directed
the learned counsel appearing for the CPCB to conduct an
inspection and submit a report with regard to the stretches 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of River Palar, including the Common Effluent
Treatment Plant (CETP) within three weeks.

10 It appears that second respondent - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has given a clean chit to the
tanning industries that they are not causing any pollution to the Palar River passing through the District of
Vellore. It is not clear from the report whether there is any pollution in the Palar River /water bodies and
its tributaries and if there is any pollution the resources through which the pollution is caused. Second
respondent - Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to make fresh inspection and file a status
report along with copy of the inspection report about the pollution of the Palar River within four weeks.
11 Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board reported that no
pollution is being caused by the leather and other industries situated nearer to Palar river in the district
Vellore, Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is still pollution in the river
Palar. On the directions of the court, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board-second respondent made
inspection and submitted report with regard to stretches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the river Palar. It is
reported that there is no more pollution in river Palar within the stretches aforesaid at the instance of the
industries. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is still pollution in the river
Palar due to which some of the persons recently get affected.
In view of the contradictory stand taken by the parties, we are of the view that the report should be
obtained from Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi. We accordingly, implead Central Pollution
Control Board through its Chairman, Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi-110032 as party respondent.
Let notice be issued on the Central Pollution Control Board returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition,
is permitted.
On their appearance, the Court may direct them to make inspection of river Palar and the industries,
municipalities and other sources discharging affluents in the river at various locations of the Vellore
district and submit report, analysis along with maps. The State Pollution Control Board will cooperate the
Central Pollution Control Board.
1288 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

18.6. In compliance of the same, the Officials of the CPCB carried out
an inspection of 124.5 km of River Palar stretches, 8 Common
Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) and 26 Individual Effluent
Treatment Plants (IETPs) in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu and
presented a report on 12.05.2015.
18.7. On 04.12.2017, when the matters were taken up for
consideration, it was represented before this Court that
at present, the pollution is due to the non-treatment of
municipal solid waste and hence, this court directed the
Additional Advocate General to file a report on behalf of the
State regarding the action taken with respect to solid waste
management.
18.8. On 19.11.2024, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for all the parties, this Court directed the State
Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board
to file a report regarding the current situation of the pollution
alleged to have been caused by Tanneries. In compliance of
the same, the TNPCB and CPCB filed their respective reports
on 03.12.2024 and 09.12.2024.
18.9. The report of TNPCB dated 03.12.2024 proceeds to state that
(i)the quality of River Palar is not deteriorating further since
2014; (ii)the average TDS of surface water in the year 2023
at the entry of the Tirupathur District at Kodayanchi village
is 591 mg/l and at the exit of the Ranipet District (stretch
6) at Sathambakkam Village is 1416.5 mg/l and in between
the stretches, there is an increase of TDS level observed at
three locations, which might be the influence of groundwater
quality, disposal of sewage from urban local bodies, dumping
of municipal solid waste, etc.; (iii)All the CETPs and IETPs
that are located along the stretch of the Palar River have
provided ZLD system and are operating the same and TNPCB
is continuously monitoring the operation of the same; (iv)CEPI
score index evolved in Ranipet was found to be reduced over
the years from 78.13 to 18.4 and have now fallen under the
category “other polluted areas from critically polluted area”;
(v)Along the Palar River stretch, only Ambur Municipality and
Vellore Corporation have provided Sewage Treatment Plants
(STPs) to treat the sewage generated from their respective
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1289

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Urban Local Areas, However, the untreated sewage form the
urban local areas are discharged majorly through 51 outfalls
located along the River Palar; (vi)the urban local bodies have
provided the Micro Compositing Centre (MCC) and Resource
Recovery Centre (RRC) for handling and processing of day-
today Municipal Sold Wastes generated in the urban local
areas and carrying out “Bio Mining Process” to remove the
legacy wastes. However, the Municipal Sold Wastes are
dumped along the Palar River banks; (vii)Groundwater is
suitable for various agricultural activities; and (viii)the yield
of cereals such as Rice, Jowar (Cholam), Bajra (cumbu) and
Ragi in the District of Ranipet, Vellore and Tirupathur are in
the range of State Average Yield.
18.10. The report of CPCB stated that it has been filed based on
the monitoring of Groundwater (infiltration wells) and Outfalls
(drains)/surface water along the Palar River carried out by
TNPCB from time to time and the pollution control measures
adopted by Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) and
Individual Effluent Treatment Plants (IETPs) of Tannery units
collected from TNPCB. It was further stated in the said report
that at present, there are 30 tannery units, out of which 10
units are closed either on its own or directions issued by
CPCB and 20 units are operational and that all the 20 units
have upgraded Individual Effluent Treatment Plants (IETPs)
by installing Multiple Eject Evaporators (MEE) combined with
Agitated Thin Film Dryers (ATFD) as part of their Zero Liquid
Discharge (ZLD) systems, replacing earlier solar evaporation
ponds. This upgradation in treatment system has enhanced
salt recovery efficiency and optimized waste management
processes. Regarding CETPs, the report states that presently,
there are 434 tanneries connected to 8 CETPs and all 8 CETPs
in the area have upgraded the ZLD system with improved salt
recovery and sludge management and they have installed
OCEMS and connected to CPCB and TNPCB servers.
Regarding the groundwater (Infiltration Wells)/ monitoring
well located along the Palar River, the report states that
except for one location (Chakkaramallur in stretch 6), there
is an increasing trend of COD concentration ranging from 8
to 296 mg/L; and TDS (2020 to 3552 mg/L) at 8 locations,
1290 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Total Hardness (810 – 1200 mg/L) at 3 locations, Chloride
(2275 mg/L) at one location and Alkalinity (910 mg/L) at one
location, are not meeting permissible drinking water standards;
and that, BOD concentration was found in the range of 2-8
mg/L at all locations of infiltration wells and similar trend was
noticed in all the years (2021-2024). However, in monitoring
well at Girisamudram, BOD was noticed to be ranging from
6 - 28 mg/L for the year 2023 -2024. That apart, the findings
relating to outfalls (drains) in the River Palar are summarized
in the report as under:
(i)In most of the drains (outfalls) in Stretches 1, 2, 3 & 5, BOD
(32.8 - 464 mg/L) and COD (263 -1848 mg/L) are exceeding
the General Standards for discharge of Environmental
Pollutants to inland surface water, and the concentration of
Sulphide (4 - 115 mg/L) is observed higher as compared to
2015 monitoring results.
(ii)At a few locations (Stretches 1, 2 & 3), the levels of Chloride
(1150 - 2026 mg/L) is also observed higher as compared to
2015 monitoring results.
(iii)BOD concentration at 20 outfalls are meeting the general
discharge standard, as against 5 outfalls in 2015, which
indicates there is a decrease in number of outfalls in which
exceedance of BOD standard was reported in 2015.
(iv)In the year 2015, TDS at 19 outfalls was ranging from 2104
– 7088 mg/L, but at present high TDS concentration (2156 –
4320 mg/L) found only in 9 outfalls. It indicates improvement
in 27 outfalls in comparison with the year 2015.
(v)The concentration of TDS at the outfall (inlet of lake) has
decreased from 7088mg/L (2015) to 2874mg/L (present).
Similarly, the concentration of TDS at the outfall (outlet of
lake) has also decreased from 4044 mg/L (2015) to 3796mg/L
(present).
(vi)Higher Chloride concentration (1016- 1938mg/L) was
found in 11 outfalls in the year 2015 and at present Chloride
concentration is in the range of 1150 – 2026 mg/L in 04 outfalls
only, indicating improvement in 32 outfalls.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1291

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

(vii) In comparison with 2015, COD concentration as well as
exceedance in number of outfalls remains same.
As far as sewage management is concerned, the report
states that STP is constructed in two Municipalities i.e. Ambur
& Ranipet and is being operated and thus, the untreated
sewage directly joins River Patar from Vellore, Vaniyambadi,
Melvisharam, Arcot & Walajahpet Municipal limits and treated
sewage from Ambur & Ranipet towns.

V. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

VELLORE DIST. ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE /
APPELLANT IN S.L.P.(C) NOS.23633-23634 OF 2010
19. According to the learned counsel, the compensation amounts fixed
vide award dated 07.03.2001 by the LoEA were paltry, ranging from
Rs. 1,000 per hectare per year (Rs. 83 per hectare per month) to
Rs. 14,000 per hectare per year (Rs.1,167 per hectare per month).
Furthermore, the measures to recover these amounts were also
ineffective. When separate awards were passed for farmers who
were left out in the initial assessment pursuant to the order of the
High Court in WP No. 23291 of 2006, culminating in an award dated
24.08.2009, the LoEA chose to compensate the farmers from the
interest accumulated and compensation deposited before it, as well
as from the funds deposited for ecological restoration, instead of
collecting the same from the identified errant industries. This resulted
in one farmer being compensated from the amount rightfully due to
another. Farmers continued to face the brunt of pollution, and received
diminished if not nil returns from agricultural lands for decades.
Moreover, compensation was frozen for the period upto 1999 and no
fresh assessment of compensation for the period beyond 31.12.1998
was undertaken as the pollution continued unabated after that date.
20. It is also stated that the details of the persons affected, who had not
received compensation either in part or full, were already available
as part of the record in the award dated 07.03.2001. The District
Collector was the authority disbursing compensation. The appellant
had sought only a mandamus to the revenue authorities to collect the
balance compensation amount still due from the identified industrial
unit and distribute the same to the farmers identified by the LoEA.
1292 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

However, without properly appreciating the claim of the appellant,
the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by them.
21. The learned counsel further submitted that certain polluters were yet
to make the necessary payments in accordance with the award dated
07.03.2001. In fact, the High Court in its order dated 30.10.2008 in
MP No. 2 of 2008 in WP No. 8335 of 2008 had noticed this aspect
and directed the District Collector to recover the award amount
from defaulting members of AISHTMA within four weeks. This court
vide order dated 20.02.2013, in SLP (C) Nos. 23633-23634 of 2010
directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs 4.48 crores to
the farmers and to recover the same from the default tanneries.
But, till date, the compensation amount has not been paid to all the
affected parties.
22. It is submitted that the LoEA in its award dated 07.03.2001 held
that the liability to pay compensation continues beyond 31.12.1998
until the damage caused to ecology is reversed. In its subsequent
award dated 24.08.2009, the LoEA determined compensation for the
affected individuals / families who had not been included in the first
award, holding that ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ clearly states that the
polluter remains to be liable till the ecological damage caused by him
is restored; and moreover, the polluter’s liability is an absolute liability.
That apart, by quashing the order of the LoEA dated 05.05.2009,
the High Court has denied an opportunity to effectively assess
compensation beyond 1998.
23. The learned counsel stated that 14 years after the order came to be
passed by the High Court, pollution caused by the industries continues
unabated, and there has been no assessment of the liability of the
industries beyond 31.12.1998 for the damages they have caused
to ecology, citizens, farmers and their livelihoods. Therefore, it is
contended that once the fact of continuing pollution is demonstrated,
as a corollary, liability of polluters both for the closure of their illegal
units, and payment of remediation and compensation to the affected
persons continues; and that, the damage caused to the environment
and ecology cannot be reversed as long as the pollution continues.
24. The observation of the High Court that the industries cannot be
blamed for pollution on account of non-implementation of the scheme
for reversal of ecology, despite the industries depositing Rs.5 crores,
is unmindful of the fact that pollution is still continuing, and any
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1293

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

meaningful scheme for reversal of ecology can be implemented only
when the pollution ceases and hence, the same is unsustainable.
25. The learned counsel submitted that after thorough analysis, the LoEA
constituted by the Central Government in terms of the judgment of
this Court in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum (supra), clearly found
that pollution was still being caused by the tanneries and the
level of pollution due to the discharge of effluents was exceeding
permissible limits and the steps taken by the industries to install
reverse osmosis plants were at the initial stage with no plant having
become operational so far. Consequently, the LoEA passed the
order dated 05.05.2009 fixing the liability on the industries to pay
compensation to the affected families / individuals. Thus, the order
passed by the LoEA based on specific evidence and the actual state
of the pollution, cannot be faulted.
26. According to the learned counsel, the liability of the leather tanneries
for the pollution caused by them did not cease in the year 1998 by
merely paying the compensation amount. The polluting industries
are liable to reverse the damage to the environment and ecology
as long as the tanneries continue to pollute the environment on
(a) polluter pays principle and (b) precautionary principle, both of
which have been recognized by this Court. The industries, which
are still polluting the environment, cannot absolve themselves of
their liability, merely on the ground that some payment was made
by them to the Government in terms of directions of this Court. In
such circumstances, the order of dismissing the writ petition passed
by the High Court stating that the claim lacks necessary particulars
or details and is based on mere allegations, is arbitrary and illegal.
27. According to the learned counsel, in order to protect major water
sources in the State, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms)
No. 213 dated 30.03.1989, thereby imposing a total ban on the
establishment of highly polluting industries within 1 kilometre of the
embankment of water bodies. Highly polluted tanneries were listed
in S.No.2 of Annexure-I and the River Palar was listed in S.No.5 of
Annexure-II of the said G.O. Further, this Court in Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum (supra), at paragraph 25(10) pointed out that “The
Government Order No. 213 dated March 30, 1989 shall be enforced
forthwith and that, no new industry listed in Annexure-I to the Notification
shall be permitted to be set up within the prohibited area. The authority
1294 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

shall review the case of all the industries which are already operating
in the prohibited area and it would be open to authority to direct the
relocation of any of such industries”. Subsequently, the Government
issued G.O.(Ms).No.127 dated 08.05.1998 expanding the above
G.O mandating that highly polluting industry (RED category) shall
not be permitted within 5 kilometres from rivers Pennaiyar, Palar,
Vaigai and Thamirabarani, and thereafter, passed G.O.(Ms).No.223
dated 02.09.1998 modifying the said G.O.(Ms)No.213 mandating that
the industries specified in Annexure I of the same, should not be
permitted within 5 kms from the embankment of the rivers Cauvery,
Pennaiyar, Palar, and Vaigai. However, the State Government has
neither prevented the establishment of new activities in the prohibited
area nor has it directed the relocation of units that existed on the
date of the G.O. In fact, all eight Common Effluent Treatment Plants
(CETPs) and several tanneries are located within the prohibited
distance from the river. As such, the siting of the industries is illegal
and their proximity to the river has exacerbated the impact of the
pollution caused. Hence, the operation of CETPs and Tanneries,
without the mandatory consent of the Pollution Control Board under the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Hazardous
Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2008 (now the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016) and in violation of the
aforementioned G.Os., must be stopped.
28. It is further submitted that despite the judgment of this Court in
Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum (supra) as well as the High Court, the
pollution caused by the tanneries continued. Eight CETPs (set up
with Government assistance to treat effluent from multiple tanneries)
and the Individual Effluent Treatment Plants (IETPs) (established by
some tanneries to treat their own effluents) continue to discharge
effluent into the environment, particularly, into the River Palar. Even
the treated effluent fails to meet the standards prescribed by the
TNPCB. Thus, Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) has not been achieved
till date, and the effluent continues to pollute groundwater through
discharge from various components of the effluent treatment system,
in violation of the principle of sustainable development.
29. The learned counsel ultimately submitted that 28 years have lapsed
since the judgment of this court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
(supra), where an opportunity was granted to the polluters to cease
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1295

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

their illegal activities and operate without causing pollution. Crores
of rupees of Government aid were sanctioned for the construction
of CETPs, which were illegally sited in close proximity to the river,
exacerbating the impact of pollution. The TNPCB, despite noticing
violations and recording pollution, has failed to take any action for
decades. Even the fact of the violation was not placed before this
Court by the respondent authorities. Hence, no equities lie in favour
of the CETPs and tanneries as they have profited at the cost of the
environment and the thousands of farmers whose lives and livelihood
has been destroyed.
30. With these submissions, the learned counsel prayed to set aside
the order of the High Court dated 28.01.2010 passed in the writ
petitions and consequently, direct the authorities concerned to
close the CETPs and tanneries which have continued to discharge
effluents and pollute the environment, without achieving ZLD and
also assess and award compensation to the affected persons till the
damage caused is reversed and the health of ecology is restored
and further direct the TNPCB to prosecute the polluting units for
violation of sections 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974.

AISHTMA / RESPONDENT NO.4 IN SLP (C)NO.23633 OF 2010 &
RESPONDENT NO.3 IN SLP (C)NO.23634 OF 2010
31. It is submitted that Tanneries have fully paid the total amount of
Rs.33.39 crores (Compensation amount of Rs.29.73 crores +
Reversal of Ecology of Rs.3.66 crores) determined by the LoEA
and the same has been disbursed by the concerned authorities and
hence, no further amount is payable by the industries. However,
without verifying this fact, the appellant after a period of 14 years,
has alleged before this Court that a balance of Rs.15 crores is still
payable by the AISHTMA. Even the Government of Tamil Nadu in its
supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2013, stated that after making the
full payment as assessed by the LoEA, balance of Rs.1.15 crores is
available with them and the same would be disbursed as and when
the issues are settled either through court or out of court.
32. It is further submitted that the LoEA in its report titled “ Report &
Award – Part II for Vellore District in Tamil Nadu on Reversal of
Damaged Ecology” dated 27.09.2001 Annexure IV, recommended 7
1296 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

schemes to be implemented by the industries and 8 schemes to be
implemented by the government, to prevent further damage to the
environment. The LoEA directed the industries and the government
to implement these schemes respectively. Accordingly, the industries
have diligently adhered to the suggested recommendations and
continues to do so in order to ensure a clean environment. As
regards the other eight schemes, it is for the government authorities
to implement the same, including the disposal of 150000 Tonnes of
solid wastes containing about 3% sodium chromate dumped by the
Tamil Nadu Chromates and Chemicals Industries, Ranipet.
33. It is submitted that the appellant in SLP (C) Nos.23633 -23634 of
2010 has approached the issue with a “tunnel vision” on the tannery
industry, thereby ignoring all other industries and contributors to
pollution in the river. Referring to the affidavit filed by the TNPCB,
and the report of the CPCB, it is stated that one of the major
contributors of pollution is untreated sewage and dumping of solid
municipal wastes in the river and its surroundings. Placing reliance
on the report of the CPCB, it is submitted that none of the Urban
areas in Vellore District have sewage treatment plants and the
entire untreated sewage is being let out either through the outfalls
or drains eventually leading to the river. Further, in both the urban
areas and villages throughout the district many outfalls carry the
untreated sewage through organized Municipal Drainage Systems,
thereby discharging the untreated sewage directly into the river.
Moreover, it is not only the untreated sewage but the total solid
wastes garbage generated in the towns are dumped in the river.
Despite the responsibility of the municipalities to treat sewage,
no steps have been taken, even though the LoEA has framed a
scheme way back in 2001. Consequently, the untreated sewage
continues to be released directly into the river.
34. It is also submitted that the River Palar, which once had a breadth
of 2000 Ft. has been reduced to 200 Ft. in many areas due to
encroachments on both banks. That apart, even sand mining is
rampant in the district thereby causing irreparable damage to the
river. It is reported that sand had been dug up to a depth of nearly
30 ft. As a result, groundwater which was once available at 200 ft, is
now only found below 1000 ft. for water. It is further submitted that
agriculture activities can easily be noticed in many areas of the river,
thereby causing inorganics like fertilizers etc., to directly penetrate
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1297

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

into water sources. Thus, there are many polluters other than the
tannery industries that are causing pollution to the river.
35. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the leather industry
plays a pivotal role in the Indian economy. With this, India has strong
skilled manpower and innovative technology. The country has an eco-
sustainable tanning base and modern manufacturing units. According
to statistics, approximately 50 thousand workers are employed in
the tanning industry and about 1.5 lakhs from the allied Industry &
indirectly about 4 lakhs workers are employed across the Vellore
district, including leather garment manufacturing, with the majority
concentrated in towns like Ambur, Vaniyambadi, Ranipet, Visharam,
and Pernambut. Further, the percentage of women in the leather
industry in Vellore District, is considered to be high, with estimates
suggesting that women make up a significant portion of the workforce,
often exceeding 80%, which is due to the dominance of the footwear
sector. Therefore, Tannery industry contributes significantly to the
economy and employment in the region.
36. It is further submitted that this court, in Vellore Citizen Welfare
Forum (supra), directed all Tanneries in 5 Districts of Tamil
Nadu to set up Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) or
Individual Effluent Treatment Plants (IETPs), and those connected
with CETPs to install additional Pre-treatment Systems in the
tanneries and further directed to obtain Consent of the Board to
operate. During 1990’s, the Ministry of Environment & Forests
(MoEF), Government of India, initiated an innovative financial
support scheme for CETPs to ensure the growth of the small and
medium entrepreneurs (SMEs) in an environmentally compatible
manner. The Tanning Industry took up the responsibility and
started setting up CETPs. By the end of 1995/1998, eight CETPs
were set up in Vellore District apart from the Individual Treatment
Plants (IETPs) set up by large industries for isolated tanneries
which could not be connected to CETP. All the above CETPs and
IETPs hence adopted the Best Available Technology (BAT) of the
time as suggested, approved and monitored by the TNPCB. It is
worth mentioning that no Tannery in Tamil Nadu was operating
without a proper Treatment Plant from 1998. Further the funding
from Government Agencies for the Up-gradation Projects in the
CETPs were approved by the TNPCB.
1298 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

37. It is also submitted that this respondent entered into an MoU with
NEERI (National Environmental Engineering Research Institute)
and CLRI (Central Leather Research Institute) to provide technical
guidance in meeting the discharge norms prescribed by the TNPCB.
The industry in order to demonstrate its bona fide intentions towards
establishment of sustainable ecology in their surroundings, voluntarily
accepted to set up ZLD for tanneries, though the ZLD concept was
not a statutory requirement. Under the ZLD System, pre-treated
effluent from Member Tanneries is conveyed to the CETP and the
entire effluents received from member tanneries are treated, water
recovered are reused and not a drop of water is discharged from the
CETPs thus achieving ZLD. Hence, ZLD System enables tanneries
to recover and reuse water for their process thus minimizing the
drawal of water from water bodies like wells etc.
38. According to the learned counsel, presently there are 8 CETPs to
which 459 tanneries are connected and 26 IETPs in the erstwhile
Vellore District, all of which have set up ZLD Plants that are
successfully operating under the supervision of the TNPCB. The
tanning industry in Tamil Nadu is the only sector in India that has
implemented ZLD system, having made substantial investment of
more than Rs.747.19 Crores for the establishment of the 8 CETPs
with financial assistance from the Government of India and the
Government of Tamil Nadu. Additionally, Rs.75 Crores has been
invested for the establishment of 26 IETPs.
39. It is further submitted that the tanneries incur exorbitant operation and
maintenance cost. The O & M cost of the ZLD system is substantial
with the cost per cubic meter having increased nearly 10 times since
the implementation of the ZLD system. Previously, the O&M cost
under conventional treatment system was around Rs.50 - 80 per cubic
meter, but with the new system, this cost has risen to approximately
Rs.700 to 800 per cubic meter, with energy cost alone accounting
for 50% of the total O&M expenses. That apart, the operation and
maintenance cost of the CETPs is borne collectively by the members
on a pro-rata basis based on the volume of effluent discharged by
each member unit.
40. It is also submitted that TNPCB as per the directions of the CPCB
has fixed certain parameters to be followed by the Member Units
of the CETPs before discharging their effluent to their respective
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1299

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

CETPs. The functioning of the CETP and IETPs are monitored online
by both TNPCB & CPCB. The Electromagnetic Flow Meters and
the IP Cameras are connected to the Water Quality Watch Centre
of TNPCB and CPCB portal for online monitoring to ensure ZLD at
all times. The CPCB continuously monitors online at the outlet of
the CETPs. It is further submitted that TNPCB collects the effluent
samples every month at various stages and result are shared with
the CETP and directions are issued in case of variations in the
parameters. Relying on the observation of the High Court in the
order in W.P.No.8335 of 2009, it is thus submitted that steps have
been taken to prevent pollution.
41. Regarding the Solid Waste Management System, it is submitted that
the sludge generated from the treatment system as well as from
the Pre-treatment system in Member tanneries is processed using
mechanical dewatering system, such as, Filter Press, Screw Press
and Centrifuges to reduce moisture content. The sludge having 40%
of solids content and 60% of moisture are collected and stored in an
impervious, covered roofed sludge storage shed. After drying it is then
scientifically disposed of to Cement Industries for Co-processing in their
Cement Kiln to convert it into utilizable product as per the Hazardous
Waste Authorization issued to the CETPs/IETPs by the TNPCB.
42. It is submitted that as explained supra, the industry implemented,
with the assistance and guidance of the premier leather research
institute in the country viz; Central Leather Research Institute,
scientific, eco-friendly measures in tanneries based on the “reduce,
recycle and reuse” (3R) principle in the pre-process, in-process and
end-of-pipe stages to reduce pollution load in the discharged effluent;
voluntarily stopped using chemicals that do not pass ZDHC- Level 3
certification; converted conventional effluent treatment systems into
Zero Liquid Discharge Effluent Treatment Systems using modern,
state-of-the- art proven technology and disposes off hazardous solid
waste to Pollution Control Board-certified pre-processors to be used
in cement kiln industries thus ensuring that ecology is not harmed
by the industry on account of its solid waste or liquid waste.
43. It is further submitted that the salt generated by the CETPs from
its Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) Process are stored in an
impervious Salt Storage shed as per the direction of the TNPCB.
The CETPs have also prepared a Detailed Project Report (DPR)
1300 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for purification of MEE salt for reuse in the Chlor-alkali industries
as per the design of the CSIR-Central Salt and Marine Chemicals
Research Institute (CSMCRI) Bhav Nagar, Gujarat and submitted
the same to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal
Trade (DPIIT), a Central Government Department under the Ministry
of Commerce & Industry, Govt of India. The report is currently
awaiting funding approval under the Indian Footwear and Leather
Development Programme (IFLDP) – Sustainable Technology &
Environmental Promotion (STEP) sub-scheme after being duly vetted
by the CSIR -Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI). It is also
submitted that the tannery industry in the erstwhile Vellore District
(now trifurcated into three districts) has already paid the compensation
as stipulated by the LoEA and implemented all the directions issued
by the LoEA, thus completely arresting discharge of treated effluent
onto land or into the river.
44. With these submissions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss
the appeals filed by the appellant / Vellore District Environment
Monitoring Committee.

AISHTMA / APPELLANT IN SLP(C) NO.26608 OF 2011
45. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of the High Court,
a detailed, comprehensive and scientific enquiry was conducted
which culminated into an award dated 07.03.2001 to identify the
pollution affected individuals or families in the entire Vellore District
for the period 1991-1998. The said award has already been duly
complied with by the AISHTMA which deposited the pollution fine
levied under the said award on individual tanners and has paid the
pollution compensation amounts for the affected persons as well
as for ecological restoration and reversal schemes. This was done,
despite the fact that hundreds of crores of rupees had already been
spent by the tanning industry in adopting the latest and most modern
pollution controlling techniques.
46. It is further submitted that the LoEA admitted in the award dated
07.03.2001 that it identified 186 villages in 7 taluks of the entire
Vellore District as pollution affected ones for the period 1991-1998
with 29,193 individuals or families as beneficiaries to receive pollution
compensation from the AISHTMA and therefore, the question of
re-conducting this exercise after a gap of 10 years to consider the
left-over cases is unsustainable.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1301

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

47. It is further submitted that the LoEA illegally empowered itself to re-
conduct the entire exercise for the so-called left-over cases which
ultimately culminated into an Award dated 24.08.2009. This award
was based on the interim order dated 20.12.2007 passed by another
bench of the High Court in WP(C) No.23291 of 2006 filed by the
Vellore Consumer Forum. In the said interim order, the High Court
merely recorded the submission of the Counsel for the LoEA to the
effect that the LoEA will consider all the applications filed before
the cut-off date which are pending as well as the applications that
are filed after the cut-off date and decide them in accordance with
law and grant compensation wherever the case is made out. Thus,
there was no direction to the LoEA by the High Court to consider
the left-over cases and the LoEA misused the directions of the High
Court in its attempt to make the tanning industry represented by
the AISHTMA as a scapegoat to hide its own wrongful omissions
and commissions. Further, in the aforesaid writ petition, neither the
appellant nor any other affected tanning industry was made a party
and the said writ petition is still pending for final disposal.
48. According to the learned counsel, the report and the award dated
24.08.2009 passed by the LoEA thereby awarding compensation to
the tune of Rs. 2.91 Crores to 1382 affected individuals is without
jurisdiction, and even if assuming without conceding these to be
within jurisdiction, there was violation of the principles of natural
justice as the compensation demanded through claim notices were
sent to individual tanneries by the LoEA even before passing of the
award on 24.08.2009.
49. It is further submitted that the arguments/objections made by the
AISHTMA before the LoEA were not considered in the Award dated
24.08.2009 and was rather summarily rejected. That apart, the
findings of the LoEA are not only vague but also bereft of any reliable
evidence and is based only on conjectures and surmises.
50. It is further stated that post 2003 the AISHTMA and other tanning
industries have more capably adhered to the charter on Corporate
Responsibility for Environmental Protection (CREP) carved out
by the Central Pollution Control Board in the year 2003 for the
tanning sector across India, which is very much evident from
the implementation status report as on January, 2005 of the
Task Force constituted by the Central Pollution Control Board for
1302 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

overseeing its CREP recommendations. Even upon considering a
presumptuous eventuality that the LoEA has powers to identify the
affected individuals through its Award dated 24.08.2009 belatedly
and retrospectively for the period 1991-1998; even then also the
principle of equity demands that the amount of compensation
should be disbursed to the left-over affected persons, etc. from
the amount already deposited years ago by the appellant herein
under the Award dated 07.03.2001, without mentioning the interest
part accrued on such heavy amounts to the tune of many crores.
Therefore, no fresh liability should be fastened on the appellant
because no relevant material evidence has been adduced by the
LoEA that there is a damage to the ecology after 1999 and moreover,
once the tanning industry has always fulfilled its part of the liability
to bring down pollution levels. Thus, it should not be held liable for
wrongful omissions and commissions of others, especially LoEA
and the concerned State Govt which were entirely responsible for
initiation of timely and expeditious implementation of ecological
reversal schemes and programmes.
51. Without considering all these aspects, the High Court erred in
dismissing the writ petition filed by AISHTMA by the order impugned
herein, which will have to be set aside by this Court.

RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 IN SLP (C) NO.26608 OF 2011
52. At the outset, it is submitted that the appellant / AISHTMA is the
fourth respondent in SLP (C)Nos.22633-22634 of 2010 and has
been actively contesting the same by filing counter affidavits, etc.
However, as a counter blast, they preferred this appeal, which was
registered as SLP(C)No.26608 of 2011, without there being any order
to condone the delay of 439 days in filing the same.
53. It is further submitted that at the instance of the AISHTMA, the award
dated 07.03.2001 passed by the LoEA was challenged in W.P.No.512
of 2002, which by order dated 22.03.2002, was disposed of by the
High Court, by permitting the tanneries to deposit the compensation
determined in instalments. However, the award of the LoEA was
affirmed by the High Court and the same reached finality. Hence, the
liability of the industries to pay compensation for the environmental
damage caused by them is no longer res integra and has been
accepted by the appellant AISHTMA.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1303

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

54. As far as the award dated 24.08.2009 passed by the LoEA is
concerned, the learned counsel submitted that it was only in respect
of those who were left out of the earlier award dated 07.03.2001.
It pertains to the very same area, following the same methodology,
based on inspections conducted by the LoEA and was issued after
issuance of notices to the AISHTMA and tanneries. Therefore, the
AISHTMA cannot proceed to challenge the very basis of their liability
to pay compensation, as these issues have been conclusively decided
by this Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra).
55. It is submitted that the AISHTMA attempts to conflate two awards
of the Authority, which according to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4,
are distinct. Vide award dated 24.08.2009 which was impugned
in W.P No. 22638 of 2009, the LoEA dealt with the left-out cases
for the period from 12.08.1991 to 31.12.1998. Whereas, the LoEA
passed an order dated 05.05.2009 based on the orders in M.P.
No. 1 of 2008 in W.P. No. 8335 of 2008, subsequently modified
by the High Court in M.P. No. 2 of 2008 in W.P. No. 8335 of 2008,
which dealt with liability of the polluters to pay compensation for
the period 1999-2008. Thus, both the awards/orders of the authority
are distinct.
56. Adding further, it is submitted that paragraph 3.1 of the award of
the LoEA dated 24.08.2009 indicates that on scrutiny, out of the
7,937 claims received, 515 were found to be duplicates and the
remaining 7,422 claims were processed and intimation of the steps
taken by the authority was sent to the AISHTMA. Also, paragraph
4 of the Award proceeds to state that for the 7,422 claims, from
the same 7 Taluks covered in the earlier award, once again, field
surveys were fixed with advance intimation to the AISHTMA.
However, it appears that representatives of the AISHTMA did
not participate in the field surveys which were conducted in the
presence of revenue officials and water samples were collected
from wells to ascertain TDS, based on which the compensation
was to be calculated. The LoEA used an extremely conservative
yardstick to determine compensation payable per hectare, i.e., a
farmer whose livelihood is destroyed by contamination of their water
source, rendering the land fallow and uncultivable, was provided
a meager sum ranging from Rs.1,000/- a year to Rs.14,000/- a
year (Rs.83/- a month to Rs.1,166/- a month per hectare per year
1304 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was quantified). This meager compensation was also computed
and awarded only for the period from 12.08.1991 to 31.12.1998.
If pollution has stopped and the ecology has recovered, then
further compensation is not required. Whereas, it is evident from
the reports of the TNPCB and the audit of the CPCB, none of
the units have achieved Zero Liquid Discharge, and the pollution
continues unabated. It is therefore just and necessary that the
compensation be paid to the affected parties till the damage is
reversed and the ecology recovers.
57. Therefore, it is submitted that the High Court has correctly dismissed
the writ petition, after having held that the award impugned in the
writ petition, cannot be termed as a fresh award and that it is a
continuation of the earlier award of the year 2001, as it concerns the
left-out cases. The High Court rightly placed reliance on the polluter
pays principle to hold that the liability continues till the ecological
damage caused by the polluter is restored and the liability is an
absolute liability. Therefore, the High Court, in line with the judgement
in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum held that the polluters ought to be
liable for payment of compensation until the pollution ceases and
the ecological damage is restored, and that the compensation paid
cannot be considered as one-time payment.
58. According to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the present attempt of
the AISTHMA is to frustrate poor and marginal farmers who have
suffered the fallout of the pollution caused by tanneries, who have
profited and prospered by polluting the environment and these entities
have saved money by not treating the effluent. Thus, according to
the learned counsel, the order of the High Court does not require
any interference by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES
59. Reiterating the contents made in the reports submitted by them,
pursuant to the order of this court dated 19.11.2024 regarding the
current state of pollution in the Vellore District, the learned counsel
for the TNPCB and CPCB have made their respective submissions.
They have also submitted that the authorities are intending to comply
with any directions / orders, that may be passed by this Court, to
sub-serve the interests of justice.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1305

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

VI. ANALYSIS

(A) BASIC PRINCIPLES
60. At the outset, it is imperative to establish the three foundational
principles viz., (i) Doctrine of Public Trust, (ii) Principle of Sustainable
Development, and (iii) Right to healthy environment, that must guide
the consideration of other aspects in this case.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
61. The Doctrine of Public Trust asserts that vital natural resources such
as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the State
for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Rooted in Roman law,
which classified these resources as common property (res communis)
or unowned (res nullius), and refined by English common law, this
doctrine places a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them
from privatization or exploitation that compromises public interests.
It imposes three key restrictions viz., (a)resources must remain
accessible for public use, (b)cannot be sold for private gain, and (c)
must be preserved in their natural state. Courts internationally, have
extended its scope to protect wetlands, riparian forests, and
ecologically fragile lands, emphasizing the need for environmental
preservation in light of modern ecological challenges. This evolving
interpretation reflects the doctrine’s relevance in maintaining the
balance between sustainable development and environmental
conservation. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath12, this court elucidated
the doctrine of public trust as follows:
“24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory
known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded
on the ideas that certain common properties such as
rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by the
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded
use of the general public. Our contemporary concern
about “the environment” bears a very close conceptual
relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman
law these resources were either owned by no one (res
nullious) or by everyone in common (res communious).

12 (1997) 1 SCC 388
1306 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign
could own these resources but the ownership was limited
in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to
private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public
interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were
suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust
by the Crown for the benefit of the public. Joseph L. Sax,
Professor of Law, University of Michigan — proponent of
the Modern Public Trust Doctrine — in an erudite article
“Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective
Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part
1 p. 473, has given the historical background of the public
trust doctrine as under:
‘The source of modern public trust law is found in a
concept that received much attention in Roman and
English law — the nature of property rights in rivers,
the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given
considerable attention in the legal literature, need not
be repeated in detail here. But two points should be
emphasised. First, certain interests, such as navigation
and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of
the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes
was distinguished from general public property which
the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners.
Second, while it was understood that in certain common
properties — such as the seashore, highways, and running
water — “perpetual use was dedicated to the public”, it has
never been clear whether the public had an enforceable
right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although
the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence
is available that public rights could be legally asserted
against a recalcitrant government.’
25. The public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle
that certain resources like air, sea, waters, and the forests
have such a great importance to the people as a whole
that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject
of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of
nature, they should be made freely available to everyone
irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1307

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment
of the general public rather than to permit their use for
private ownership or commercial purposes. According to
Professor Sax the public trust doctrine imposes the following
restrictions on governmental authority:
“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are
often though to be imposed by the public trust: first, the
property subject to the trust must not only be used for a
public purpose, but it must be held available for use by
the general public; second, the property may not be sold,
even for a fair cash equivalent; and third property must
be maintained in particular types of uses”.
62. Further, in Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu13, it was observed
by this Court as follows:
“25. In addition, the public trust doctrine, recognized in
various jurisdictions, including India, establishes that
the state holds natural resources in trust for the benefit
of the public. It reinforces the idea that the State must
act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the
common resources necessary for the well-being of the
populace are protected against exploitation or degradation.
These principles underscore the importance of balancing
economic interests with environmental and public welfare
concerns. While the industry has played a role in economic
growth, the health and welfare of the residents of the area
is a matter of utmost concern. In the ultimate analysis,
the State Government is responsible for preserving and
protecting their concerns.”

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
63. The doctrine of sustainable development was evolved to strike
a balance between economic advancement and environmental
safeguards. It envisions development that can be sustained by nature /
environment. While the advancement of industries and infrastructure
is indispensable for fostering employment and generating revenue,

13 2024 SCC Online SC 230
1308 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

such growth cannot come at the cost of irreparable ecological
damage. This Court has already extensively considered the concept
of sustainable development in the following decisions, the relevant
paragraphs of which are reproduced below:
(i) Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (supra):
“10. The traditional concept that development and
ecology are opposed to each other is no longer
acceptable. “Sustainable Development” is the answer.
In the international sphere, “Sustainable Development”
as a concept came to be known for the first time in the
Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987
the concept was given a definite shape by the World
Commission on Environment and Development in its
report called “Our Common Future”. The Commission was
chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H.
Brundtland and as such the report is popularly known
as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the World Conservation
Union, United Nations Environment Programme and
Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came out with a
document called “Caring for the Earth” which is a strategy
for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth Summit held
in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest gathering of
world leaders ever in history—deliberating and chalking
out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among the
tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the
signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity
and another on climate change. These conventions were
signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved
by consensus three non-binding documents, namely,
a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of
principles on environmental policy and development
initiatives and Agenda 21, a programme of action into
the next century in areas like poverty, population and
pollution. During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio
“Sustainable Development” has come to be accepted
as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve
the quality of human life while living within the carrying
capacity of the supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable
Development” as defined by the Brundtland Report
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1309

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

means “Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of the future generations
to meet their own needs”. We have no hesitation in
holding that “Sustainable Development” as a balancing
concept between ecology and development has been
accepted as a part of the customary international law
though its salient features have yet to be finalised by
the international law jurists.”
(ii) Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P.14:
“84. The world has reached a level of growth in the 21st
century as never before envisaged. While the crisis
of economic growth is still on, the key question which
often arises and the courts are asked to adjudicate
upon is whether economic growth can supersede the
concern for environmental protection and whether
sustainable development which can be achieved only by
way of protecting the environment and conserving the
natural resources for the benefit of humanity and future
generations could be ignored in the garb of economic
growth or compelling human necessity. The growth and
development process are terms without any content,
without an inkling as to the substance of their end results.
This inevitably leads us to the conception of growth and
development, which sustains from one generation to the
next in order to secure “our common future”. In pursuit
of development, focus has to be on sustainability of
development and policies towards that end have to be
earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. As Prof.
Weiss puts it, “conservation, however, always takes a back
seat in times of economic stress”. It is now an accepted
social principle that all human beings have a fundamental
right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their
well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring
that resources are conserved and preserved in such a
way that present as well as the future generations are
aware of them equally.”

14 (2006) 3 SCC 549
1310 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iii) Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars
Protection Assn.15
“The concept of “sustainable development” has been
explained that it covers the development that meets the
needs of the person without compromising the ability of
the future generation to meet their own needs. It means
the development, that can take place and which can be
sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that
the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is
to be decided in public interest, according to a “reasonable
person’s” test. The development of the industries, irrigation
resources and power projects are necessary to improve
employment opportunities and generation of revenue,
therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a
balance has to be struck for the reason that if the activity
is allowed to go on, there may be irreparable damage to
the environment and there may be irreparable damage to
the economic interest. A similar view has been reiterated by
this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (104) v. Union
of India [(2008) 2 SCC 222] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India [(2009) 6 SCC 142].”
(iv) Vedanta Limited (supra)
“24. The closure of the industry is undoubtedly not a matter
of first choice. The nature of the violations and the repeated
nature of the breaches coupled with the severity of the
breach of environmental norms would in the ultimate analy-
sis have left neither the statutory authorities nor the High
Court with the option to take any other view unless they
were to be oblivious of their plain duty. We are conscious of
the fact that the unit, as this Court observed in its decision
in 2013, has been contributing to the productive assets
of the nation and providing employment and revenue in
the area. While these aspects have undoubted relevance,
the Court has to be mindful of other well-settled principles
including the principles of sustainable development, the

15 (2009) 9 SCC 737
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1311

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

polluter pays principle, and the public trust doctrine. The
polluter pays principle, a widely accepted norm in interna-
tional and domestic environmental law, asserts that those
who pollute or degrade the environment should bear the
costs of mitigation and restoration. This principle serves
as a reminder that economic activities should not come at
the expense of environmental degradation or the health
of the population.
…..
26. As consistently held in numerous decisions of this
Court, the unequivocal right to a clean environment is an
indispensable entitlement extended to all persons. Air,
which is polluted beyond the permissible limit, not only has
a detrimental impact on all life forms including humans,
but also triggers a cascade of ecological ramifications.
The same is true for polluted water, where the pervasive
contamination poses a profound threat to the delicate bal-
ance of ecosystems. The impact of environmental pollution
and degradation is far reaching: it is often not only severe
but also persists over the long term. While some adverse
effects may be immediately evident, the intensity of other
kinds of harm reveals itself over time. Persons who live
in surrounding areas may develop diseases which not
only result in financial burdens but also impact the quality
of life. The development and growth of children in these
communities may become stunted, creating a tragic legacy
of compromised potential. Basic necessities, such as ac-
cess to potable water, may not be met, exacerbating the
challenges faced by these already vulnerable populations.
Undoubtedly, such adverse effects are felt more deeply by
marginalised and poor communities, for whom it becomes
increasingly difficult to escape the cycle of poverty.
27. This Court is also alive to the concept of
intergenerational equity, which suggests that “present
residents of the earth hold the earth in trust for future
generations and at the same time the present generation
is entitled to reap benefits from it.” The planet and its
invaluable resources must be conscientiously conserved
1312 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and responsibly managed for the use and enjoyment of
future generations, emphasising the enduring obligation
to safeguard the environmental heritage for the well-
being of all.
28. It is an undeniable and fundamental truth that all
persons have the right to breathe clean air, drink clean
water, live a life free from disease and sickness, and for
those who till the earth, have access to uncontaminated
soil. These rights are not only recognized as essential
components of human rights but are also enshrined in
various international treaties and agreements, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention
on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement. As such,
they must be protected and upheld by governments and
institutions worldwide, even as we generate employment
and industry. The ultimate aim of all our endeavours is
for all people to be able to live ‘the good life.’ Without
these basic rights, increased revenue and employment
cease to have any real meaning. It is not merely about
economic growth but about ensuring the well-being and
dignity of every individual. As we pursue development, we
must prioritize the protection of these rights, recognizing
that they are essential for sustainable progress. Only
by safeguarding these fundamental rights can we truly
create a world where everyone has the opportunity to
thrive and prosper.
29. We have heard these proceedings for several days and
after a careful evaluation of the factual and legal material,
we have come to the conclusion that the Special Leave
Petitions do not warrant interference under Article 136 of
the Constitution.”
(v) M.C.Mehta v. Union of India16
“19.….As stated above, in the past when mining leases
were granted, requisite clearances for carrying out mining
operations were not obtained which have resulted in land

16 (2009) 6 SCC 142
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1313

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

and environmental degradation. Despite such breaches,
approvals had been granted for subsequent slots because
in the past the Authorities have not taken into account the
macro effect of such wide scale land and environmental
degradation caused by absence of remedial measures
(including rehabilitation plan). Time has now come,
therefore, to suspend mining in the above Area till statutory
provisions for restoration and reclamation are duly complied
with, particularly in cases where pits/quarries have been
left abandoned. Environment and ecology are national
assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity.
Time has now come to suspend all mining in the above
Area on Sustainable Development Principle which is part
of Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.
In fact, these Articles have been extensively discussed in
the judgment in M.C. Mehta’s case (supra) which keeps
the option of imposing a ban in future open. Mining within
the Principle of Sustainable Development comes within the
concept of “balancing” whereas mining beyond the Principle
of Sustainable Development comes within the concept of
“banning”. It is a matter of degree. Balancing of the mining
activity with environment protection and banning such
activity are two sides of the same principle of sustainable
development. They are parts of Precautionary Principle.”

RIGHT TO HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
64. Right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy, pollution free
environment, which are essential for the full enjoyment of life. If
anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws,
a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution
to address the pollution of environment which may be detrimental to
the quality of life. This court has recognised the concept of ‘right to
healthy environment’ as part of the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 and
thereby has also recognised the ‘right to clean drinking water’ as a
fundamental right. Infact, environmental rights, which encompass a
group of collective rights, are now described as “third generation”
rights. Therefore, the State, so as to sustain its claim of functioning
for the welfare of its citizens, is bound to regulate water supply by
safeguarding, maintaining and restoring the water bodies to protect
1314 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards. This court
has also laid down in many cases, that the States shall ensure that
the water bodies are free from encroachments and steps must be
taken to restore the water bodies. In this context, we may refer to
the following judgments and observations made thereunder:
(i) Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar17
“7. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It
provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard
the Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Right to live is a
fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and
it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water
and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen
has right to have recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution
for removing the pollution of water or air which may be
detrimental to the quality of life. …..”
(ii) State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh18
“175. Water is a unique gift of nature which has made
the planet earth habitable. Life cannot be sustained
without water. In the National Water Policy issued by the
Government of India in 1987, it was declared that water
is a prime natural resource, a basic human need and a
precious national asset. Water, like air, is the essence for
human survival. The history of water availability and its
user is tied up with the history of biologically evolution in all
civilizations. It will not be wrong to say that not only the life
started in water but rather water is life itself. It is essential
for mankind, animals, environment, flora and fauna. There
is no denial of the fact that in the ancient times water played
an important role in the origin, development and growth
of civilization all over the globe. Water is an important
factor in the economic development of the countries which
ultimately affects the social and human relations between

17 (1991) 1 SCC 598 : 1991 SCC OnLine SC 42
18 (2000) 9 SCC 572
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1315

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

the habitants. Planned development and proper utilization
of water resources can serve both as a cause as well as
an effect off the prosperity of a nation. Water on earth is
available in the form of frozen snow, rivers lakes, springs,
water ways, water falls and aqueducts, etc.”
(iii) A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Others19
“7. Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to
develop the concept of right to ‘healthy environment’ as
part of the right to “life” under Article 21 of our Constitution.
[See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3)
SCC 161)]. This principle has now been adopted in various
countries today.
8. In today’s emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights
which encompass a group of collective rights are described
as “third generation” rights. The “first generation” rights
are generally political rights such as those found in the
International Convention on Civil & Political Rights while
“second generation” rights are social and economic rights
as found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. “Right to Healthy Environment”. (See
Vol.25) 2000 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law by
John Lee P.283, at pp.293-294 fn.29).”

(B) POLLUTION CAUSED BY TANNERIES
65. The livelihoods of people in Vellore District, particularly farmers, inland
fishermen, and rural communities, have been severely impacted
by the tanning industry. Excessive sand mining along riverbanks,
especially the River Palar, has caused ecological damage, including
lowered groundwater levels, riverbank erosion, and loss of fertile
land. Farmers face water scarcity, degraded soil quality, and declining
agricultural income, with crop failures becoming common. The toxic
contamination of soil and water has also led to increased public
health concerns, including respiratory and skin disorders. Tanneries
in the district, operational since 1914 are a major contributor to these
problems. They utilize chemicals, such as, calcium carbonate, sodium

19 (2001) 2 SCC 62 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1679
1316 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

chloride, and sulphuric acid in processing hides and skins. Chrome
tanning, a dominant method, generates effluents containing heavy
metals like chromium, lead, arsenic, and mercury, which contaminate
groundwater and soil, posing serious risks to human health and
ecosystems. Effluents discharge into fields, irrigation tanks, and the
River Palar exacerbates the problem, with untreated wastewater
often exceeding safe Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels, reaching
up to 15,000 mg/l in some cases.
66. Data shows that on average, tanneries process approximately 1.1
million kilograms of raw hides daily, using 45–50 million litres of water
and discharging 35–45 litres of wastewater per kilogram processed
and thereby resulting in an effluent discharge of 37,458 kld (13.5 mcm
annually). Solid waste generation ranges from 38.5 to 62 kilograms
per 100 kilograms of raw hides, with only 20–32 kilograms of finished
leather produced. The high levels of TDS in tannery wastewater,
primarily due to sodium chloride and other chemicals, further degrade
soil and water quality. This has significantly declined crop productivity,
with tannery waste rendering agricultural land infertile over time.
Further, groundwater, a primary source for drinking and domestic
use in the district, is also heavily impacted, thus adversely affecting
public health.20 Another Survey21 has also indicated the decline in the
productivity and production of crops over the years. The systematic
pollution will also have a cascading effect on the aquifers, thereby
decreasing the availability of the groundwater in the surrounding
areas. All these issues ultimately have far-reaching implications for
the region’s socio-economic stability.

(C) CURRENT STATUS OF POLLUTION
67. The CPCB report dated 09.12.2024 states that the work of monitoring
groundwater (infiltration wells) and outfalls (drains) / surface water
along the River Palar is being carried out by the TNPCB from time to
time. They also furnished status reports of pollution control measures
adopted by the CETP and IETP of tannery units, which were collected
and compiled by the TNPCB. It was revealed from the report that

20 A review on Tannery Pollution in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu reported in Research Journal of
Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences ISSN:0975-8585
21 Environmental Impact of leather Industrial Pollution on Agricultural Production in Vellore District Journal
of Environmental Impact and Management Policy - ISSN: 2799-113X
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1317

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

the TNPCB has collected samples from 34 outfalls (drains) directly
discharging into the river and the other two drains (inlet & outlet of
Pernambut Lake) in the years 2021 and 2022. Based on monitoring
reports of the TNPCB, the status of these outfalls (drains) compared
with the results of 2015, is summarised by us in the below table:

Present state of Outfalls in Palar River (2021-2022)
Parameter BOD COD TSS TDS Chromium Chloride Sulphide

Biological Chemical Total Total
Oxygen Oxygen Suspended Dissolved
Demand demand Solids Salts
Standard ≤ 30mg/l ≤ 250mg/l ≤ 100 mg/l ≤ 2100mg/l ≤ 2mg/l ≤ 1000 ≤ 2mg/l
level set by mg/l
PCB
Highest 464 1848 1934 4320 BDL 2026 115
Range Sunnabukal Sunnabukal Sunnabukal Vadakarai (Below Vadakarai
road road road Detection Sunambu kal
limit)
Lowest 32.8 OV bridge 263 108 2156 BDL 1150 4
Range Girisamudram Girisamudram Jaffrabadh (Below Minnur Viruthambatu
Detection
Limit)
Note in 20 outfalls Similar to 2015 2015 levels 2015 levels N/A Higher Higher than
comparison are meeting (164-304) (2104-7088) than 2015 2015 levels
with 2015 general (251-1952) levels
Data standard as Increasing Improvement
against 5 in trend
2015 indicating
decrease
in number
of outfalls
in which
exceedance of
BOD standards
was reported
from 2015
(31-510)

The above table clearly shows higher concentrations of BOD, COD,
TDS, Chloride and Sulphide in the Palar River stretches as compared
to 2015. Further, the result also indicates that the drains are carrying
untreated sewage and occasional influx of industrial effluent.
68. That apart, the samples were analysed for parameters such as
pH, EC, TDS, COD, Total hardness, Chloride, Alkalinity, Sulphate,
Sodium, Total Chromium and the monitoring results were compared
with Indian Standard for drinking water specification IS 10500:2012.
1318 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Present state of Groundwater and monitoring well in Palar River
(2021-2024)
Parameter BOD COD TDS Chromium Chloride Alkalinity Hardness
IS - N/A 12/26 500-2000 0.05 mg/l 250/1000 200/600 mg/l 200/600
10500:2012 mg/l mg/l mg/l
level -
drinking water

Highest 28 296 3552 BDL 2275 210-910 mg/l 810-
Range Malatru 1200mg/l
Monitoring Madhannur Ramayanathopu
in
well at Walajah
Madapalli
Girisamudram headworks

Lowest Range 2-8 08 2020 BDL 74-415 89-245 mg/l 140-290
Navlock mg/l
Chikramallur Veppur Kodayanchi
Malatru

The above table indicates that most of the groundwater (infiltration
wells) do not meet the permissible drinking water standards with
respect to TDS, total hardness, chloride & alkalinity. Additionally,
there is an increasing trend in the concentration of COD in the
groundwater, which requires detailed assessment by the TNPCB
through expert institutions, such as, NEERI, NGRI, etc. to study
the extent of groundwater contamination, if any, and to identify and
execute the remedial measures for the same.

Sewage Management
69. In 2015, the urban areas of Vellore District located on the banks of
the River Palar such as Vaniyambadi, Ambur, Vellore, Melvisharam,
Arcot, Ranipet and Walajahpet, did not have any Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP) to treat the sewage generated by these towns. Untreated
sewage from these municipal areas was either being utilised for
irrigation by surrounding farmers or ultimately flowing into the river.
At present, STPs have been constructed in two Municipalities i.e.
Ambur & Ranipet and are operational. An STP has also been
constructed in Vellore city, but is not yet operational. Thus, as of now,
untreated sewage from the municipal limits of Vellore, Vaniyambadi,
Melvisharam, Arcot and Walajahpet continues to flow into the river,
while treated sewage is discharged from Ambur & Ranipet.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1319

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Effluent Treatment Plants
70. The CPCB report reveals that at present, there are 434 tanneries
connected to the 8 CETPs. The CETPs have been upgraded to
ZLD system with improved salt recovery and sludge management.
All 8 CETPs have installed Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring
System (OCEMS) which are connected to the CPCB and TNPCB
servers. Further, in 2015, 26 tanneries had individual ETPs and at
present, there are 30 tannery units, of which 10 units have been
closed either voluntarily or due to the directions issued by CPCB,
while 20 units remain operational. All these 20 operational units
have upgraded their IETPs by installing Multiple Eject Evaporators
(MEE) combined with Agitated Thin Film Dryers (ATFD) as part of
their ZLD systems, replacing their earlier solar evaporation ponds.
These upgrades have enhanced salt recovery efficiency and
optimised waste management processes. The CPCB report further
states that there has been an improvement in the available ZLD
system both for IETPs and CETPs compared to 2015. Despite the
adoption of ZLD in the IETPs and CETPs, the higher concentration
of reported parameters in outfalls and infiltration wells in stretches
I, II, & III indicates occasional discharges from industrial activities,
along with untreated sewage from the surrounding area. The report
also highlighted the need for the TNPCB to be more vigilant with
regard to the industries in the area. Additionally, adequate sewage
management systems need to be installed in the area to prevent
untreated sewage, that is discharged into the river.

(D) LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION

POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
71. Coming to the aspect of liability, it would be relevant to discuss the
“polluters pay principle” which is the universal principle followed
for fastening liability on the polluter for the proportionate damage
caused to the environment, resulting in violation of right to clean
and healthy environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India22, it was noted that when an activity is inherently

22 (1996) 3 SCC 212
1320 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

hazardous or dangerous, the individual or entity engaging in such
activity bears absolute liability for any harm caused, regardless of the
care exercised. Polluting industries, therefore, are under an obligation
to fully compensate for the damage caused to affected communities.
More importantly, the Court clarified that the Polluter Pays Principle
extended beyond compensating victims of pollution; it included the
cost of reversing environmental degradation, in other words, they are
required to undertake all necessary remedial measures to remove
pollutants and restore the environment. This principle, along with the
Precautionary Principle, has been recognized as part of the law of
the land, drawing strength from Article 21 of the Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It underscores that
environmental protection is not merely a regulatory obligation but
a constitutional imperative aimed at safeguarding the fundamental
rights of individuals and preserving ecological balance. The relevant
paragraphs are as under:
“65…..We are convinced that the law stated by this Court
in Oleum Gas Leak case [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37] is by far the
more appropriate one — apart from the fact that it is
binding upon us. (We have disagreed with the view that
the law stated in the said decision is obiter.) According
to this rule, once the activity carried on is hazardous or
inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity
is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person
by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took
reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is
premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.
In the words of the Constitution Bench, such an activity:
(SCC p. 421, para 31)
“… can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise
engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying
on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not”.
The Constitution Bench has also assigned the reason for
stating the law in the said terms. It is that the enterprise
(carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1321

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

alone has the resource to discover and guard against
hazards or dangers — and not the person affected and the
practical difficulty (on the part of the affected person) in
establishing the absence of reasonable care or that the
damage to him was foreseeable by the enterprise.
67. The question of liability of the respondents to defray
the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into
from another angle, which has now come to be accepted
universally as a sound principle, viz., the “Polluter
Pays” principle. [ (Historic Pollution — Does the Polluter
Pay? by Carolyn Shelbourn — Journal of Planning and
Environmental Law, Aug. 1974 issue.)]
“The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial
costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by
pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the
pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution.
Under the principle it is not the role of Government to meet
the costs involved in either prevention of such damage,
or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of
this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution
incident to the taxpayer. The ‘Polluter Pays’ principle was
promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) during the 1970s when there
was great public interest in environmental issues. During
this time there were demands on Government and other
institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the
protection of the environment and the public from the
threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialised
society. Since then there has been considerable discussion
of the nature of the Polluter Pays principle, but the precise
scope of the principle and its implications for those involved
in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been
satisfactorily agreed.
Despite the difficulties inherent in defining the principle, the
European Community accepted it as a fundamental part of
its strategy on environmental matters, and it has been one
of the underlying principles of the four Community Action
Programmes on the Environment. The current Fourth
1322 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Action Programme [(1987) OJC 328/1] makes it clear that
‘the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisances must in
principle be borne by the polluter’, and the Polluter Pays
principle has now been incorporated into the European
Community Treaty as part of the new articles on the
environment which were introduced by the Single European
Act of 1986. Article 130-R(2) of the Treaty states that
environmental considerations are to play a part in all the
policies of the community, and that action is to be based
on three principles: the need for preventive action; the
need for environmental damage to be rectified at source;
and that the polluter should pay.”
72. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Vellore Citizen
Welfare Forum (supra) held in paragraph 12, as under:
“12. The Polluter Pays Principle” has been held to be a
sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212 : JT (1996)
2 SC 196] . The Court observed : (SCC p. 246, para 65)
“… we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in
this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the
conditions obtaining in this country.”
The Court ruled that : (SCC p. 246, para 65)
“… once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable
to make good the loss caused to any other person by his
activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable
care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised
upon the very nature of the activity carried on”.
Consequently, the polluting industries are thus “absolutely
liable to compensate for the harm caused by them
to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are bound to take all
necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants
lying in the affected areas”. The “Polluter Pays Principle”
as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1323

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation
of the damaged environment is part of the process of
“Sustainable Development” and as such the polluter is
liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as
the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.”
73. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath23, it was observed by this Court as
follows:
“8. Apart from the above statutes and the rules made
thereunder, Article 48-A of the Constitution provides that
the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of
the country. One of the fundamental duties of every citizen
as set out in Article 51-A(g) is to protect and improve the
natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These
two articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21
of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be
deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with
the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the
basic environment elements, namely, air, water and soil,
which are necessary for “life”, would be hazardous to “life”
within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. In the matter of enforcement of rights under Article
21 of the Constitution, this Court, besides enforcing the
provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given
effect to fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution and has held that if those rights are violated
by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not
only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also
for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance.
In order to protect “life”, in order to protect “environment”
and in order to protect “air, water and soil” from pollution,
this Court, through its various judgments has given effect to
the rights available, to the citizens and persons alike, under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment for removal of
hazardous and obnoxious industries from the residential

23 (2000) 6 SCC 213 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 963
1324 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

areas, the directions for closure of certain hazardous
industries, the directions for closure of slaughterhouse
and its relocation, the various directions issued for the
protection of the Ridge area in Delhi, the directions for
setting up effluent treatment plants to the industries located
in Delhi, the directions to tanneries, etc., are all judgments
which seek to protect the environment.
10. In the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights
under Article 21, under public law domain, the court, in
exercise of its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution,
has awarded damages against those who have been
responsible for disturbing the ecological balance either by
running the industries or any other activity which has the
effect of causing pollution in the environment. The Court
while awarding damages also enforces the “polluter-pays
principle” which is widely accepted as a means of paying
for the cost of pollution and control. To put in other words,
the wrongdoer, the polluter, is under an obligation to make
good the damage caused to the environment.”
Therefore, the industries are liable to not only compensate but also
bear the costs for restoring the river. Needless to point out that the
remedial action would not stop at restoration, but it is a continuous
process, to sustain the river, pollution free and a fresh cause of
action would commence again if the industries and the local bodies
fail in their duty.

(E) EXTENT OF LIABILITY – DEEMING FICTION AND
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
74. The idea of the Polluter Pays Principle, though seemingly progressive,
must be carefully examined to ensure it does not result in the
emergence of a “right to pollute” for those who are financially
capable or willing to pay. One key question that arises is the extent
of liability for the pollution caused, specifically, whether the liability
ends once compensation, as determined by the Court or other
authorities, is paid, or whether it is a continuing liability that persists
until the actual pollution is curbed and its effects reversed. This
Court has recognized that the Polluter Pays Principle, when applied
absolutely, has not yet sufficiently mitigated the harm caused to the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1325

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

environment, yielding below-average results. The tanneries have
clearly exploited this system, discharging effluents, assuming that
payment of compensation grants them the right to pollute. This issue
is not limited to the Vellore tanneries alone; it is a broader problem
seen across industries in developing countries, where it is often
seen as more cost-effective to pay the relatively low compensation
than to invest in cleaner technologies that would reduce pollution.
Industries, when faced with a choice between the marginal damage
cost and the marginal cleaning cost, often opt for the former, thus
perpetuating the cycle of environmental degradation. Few examples
to illustrate the same as under:
(a) Kanpur Tanneries24: Despite the Court’s order, it was revealed
that the tanneries in Kanpur were operating illegally for all 30 days
instead of the Government-mandated 15 days per month. These
tanneries have also been discharging contaminated water into the
river Ganga, continuing their harmful practices despite legal orders.
(b) Bicchri Industrial Cluster25: The Court passed a verdict in 1999,
ordering the company to pay Rs 37.4 crore for remediation. However,
the company filed multiple interlocutory applications to delay the
payment. In 2011, the Court directed the company to pay the fine
along with compound interest at 12% per annum from November
1997 until the amount was fully paid or recovered. Despite this, the
village continues to suffer from water contamination and scarcity,
impacting drinking water availability, livestock, and agricultural yields.
The community, which won the case, has been waiting for over three
decades for justice, but compensation has not reached them, and
the water crisis persists.
(c) Perundurai26: In this case, although the Court directed industries
to comply with the ZLD system, many units continue to violate the
norms. They discharge untreated effluents into open places, borewells,
wells, and rainwater, and bury sludge in the earth. The TDS levels
reportedly reached as high as 20,000 ppm per liter, highlighting a
continued disregard for environmental norms27.

24 1988 SCR (2) 530
25 1999 SCC (3) 212
26 Order dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 15244 of 2004
27 https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/Jun/16/perundurai-becomes-capital-of-
cancer-in-erode-district-1829072.html
1326 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

75. Further, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra), this Court
endorsed the application of the absolute liability principle as an
integral component of the polluter pays principle, so long as the
polluting activity results in harm or damage.
“12. … Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely
liable to compensate for the harm caused by them
to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are bound to take all
necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants
lying in the affected areas. The Polluter Pays Principle
as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of
restoring the environmental degradation. 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.”
76. We may also refer to the following decisions, regarding this aspect:
(i) Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action (supra)
“60. … Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion
that even if it is assumed [for the sake of argument] that this
Court cannot award damages against the respondents in
these proceedings that does not mean that the Court cannot
direct the Central Government to determine and recover the
cost of remedial measures from the respondents. Section
3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly
empowers the Central Government [or its delegate, as
the case may be] to take all such measures as it deems
necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
improving the quality of environment.......... Section 5
clothes the Central Government [or its delegate] with the
power to issue directions for achieving the objects of the
Act. Read with the wide definition of environment in Section
2(a), Sections 3 and 5 clothe the central Government
with all such powers as are necessary or expedient for
the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the
environment. The Central Government is empowered to
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1327

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

take all measures and issue all such directions as are
called for the above purpose. In the present case, the
said powers will include giving directions for the removal
of sludge, for undertaking remedial measures and also the
power to impose the cost of remedial measures on the
offending industry and utilize the amount so recovered for
carrying out remedial measures. This Court can certainly
give directions to the Central Government/its delegate to
take all such measures, if in a given case this Court finds
that such directions are warranted. We find that similar
directions have been made in a recent decision of this
Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors.
[supra]. That was also a writ petition filed under Article 32
of the Constitution. Following is the direction:
It appears that the Pollution Control Board had identified as
many as 22 industries responsible for the pollution caused
by discharge of their effluents into Nakkavagu. They were
responsible to compensate to farmers. It was the duty of
the State Government to ensure that this amount was
recovered from the industries and paid to the farmers.
It is, therefore, idle to contend that this Court cannot make
appropriate directions for the purpose of ensuring remedial
action. It is more a matter of form.”
(ii) Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan28
“16. The CEC has recommended imposition of exemplary
penalty of Rs.10 lakh per vehicle and Rs.5 lakh per cubic
metre of sand seized, which would be in addition to
what has already been ordered / collected by the State
agencies as compensation. Compensation / penalty to
be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot
be restricted to the value of illegally-mined minerals. The
cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of
ecological services should be part of the compensation.
The “Polluter Pays” principle as interpreted by this
Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the

28 (2022) 16 SCC 581
1328 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

environment extends not only to compensate the victims
of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental
degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment
is part of the process of “Sustainable Development”
and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the
individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the
damaged ecology”.
77. When there is a violation in compliance with the environmental laws,
be it by engaging in activities directly involved in causing pollution or
failure to take steps to curb the pollution and restore the environment
or violating any terms of licence granted by any State or central
authority and acts in a manner detrimental to the environment,
the effect of which causes or is likely to cause degradation of the
environment, then the deeming fiction of polluting the environment
becomes applicable and the polluter is not only liable to payment
of compensation but also to restore the environment. As we have
already seen, there is a persistent duty on the State to ensure that
all steps are taken to ensure the protection of the environment. The
State, even in the absence of any law, must put in place a mechanism
to address the issue of degradation by taking preventive measures.
The measures should lean towards protection and preservation
rather than facilitation of economic activity by reliance upon lack
of scientific details for adverse effects. The State must endeavour
through its research wings to identify the industries and activities
which impacts or can impact the environment before permitting
such activities as there is a possibility that the damage could not
only be irreversible but also the effects of such damage could be
far more threatening the human race than the commercial benefits
arising out of such activity. This precautionary principle, that has
been recognized in various judgments as seen above and in Vellore
Citizen Welfare Forum’s case (Supra) was reiterated by this Court in
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In re v. Union of India29, the relevant
passage of which reads as under:
“43. The approach of the Court in dealing with complaints
of environmental degradation has been laid down by this
very Bench in this writ petition itself in an order passed

29 (2022) 10 SCC 544 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 716
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1329

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

on 9-5-2022 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India, (2022) 9 SCC 306] in connection with another set of
applications. In this order, it has been observed and held :
(T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case [T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 9 SCC 306], SCC
pp. 315-16, paras 16-19)
“16. Adherence to the principle of sustainable
development is a constitutional requirement. While
applying the principle of sustainable development
one must bear in mind that development which
meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of the future generations to meet their
own needs. Therefore, courts are required to
balance development needs with the protection of
the environment and ecology [T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad (104) v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC
222]. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution
to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated
programme to meet its obligation of sustainable
development based on inter-generational equity
[A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999)
2 SCC 718]. While economic development should
not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology
or by causing widespread environment destruction
and violation; at the same time, the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper
economic and other developments. Both development
and environment must go hand in hand, in other
words, there should not be development at the cost
of environment and vice versa, but there should be
development while taking due care and ensuring the
protection of environment [Indian Council For Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281].
17. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of
India [Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of
India, (1996) 5 SCC 647], this Court held that the
“precautionary principle” is an essential feature of the
principle of “sustainable development”. It went on to
explain the precautionary principle in the following
terms : (SCC p. 658, para 11)
1330 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

‘11. … (i) Environmental measures — by the
State Government and the statutory authorities
— must anticipate, prevent and attack the
causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and
irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The “onus of proof” is on the actor or the
developer/industrialist to show that his action is
environmentally benign.’
18. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation
of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it
or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity.
It is based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental
protection should not only aim at protecting health,
property and economic interest but also protect the
environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties
must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete
danger but also by justified concern or risk potential
[A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999)
2 SCC 718].
19. A situation may arise where there may be
irreparable damage to the environment after an
activity is allowed to go ahead and if it is stopped,
there may be irreparable damage to economic
interest [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12
SCC 118] . This Court held that in case of a doubt,
protection of environment would have precedence
over the economic interest. It was further held that
precautionary principle requires anticipatory action
to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be
prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. Further,
this Court emphasises in the said judgment that it
is not always necessary that there should be direct
evidence of harm to the environment.”
While dealing with the applications in the present set of
proceedings, we shall follow the same principles.”
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1331

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

78. To tackle this issue, the NGT has adopted the above principles in
the following cases:
(i) Court on its own motion v. State of HP30:
“36. The liability of the polluter is absolute for the harm
done to the environment which extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but is also aimed to
meet the cost of restoring environment and also to remove
the sludge and other pollutants. [Ref: Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India supra]. The Supreme
Court held that the person causing pollution by carrying
on any hazardous or dangerous activity is liable to make
good the loss caused to any other person by his activity
irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care
while carrying on his commercial or industrial activity. In
the light of these principles, it is clear that the persons who
are causing pollution in the eco-sensitive areas resulting
in environmental hazards must be required to compensate
for the damage resulting from their activity. A large number
of tourists and vehicles which are using the roads and
are carrying on such other activities for their enjoyment,
pleasure or commercial benefits must be made to pay
on the strength of the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle. It will be
entirely uncalled for and unjustified if the tax payers’ money
is spent on taking preventive and control measures to
protect the environment. One who pollutes must pay. We
have already discussed at some length that the high tourist
activity, vehicular pollution and deforestation attributable to
acts of emission require to be compensated, restored and
maintained in a manner that there is minimum damage
and degradation of the environment. Such an approach
can even be justified with reference to the doctrine of
sustainable development.”
(ii) Saloni Ailawadi v. Union of India31:
“23.We may also observe that ‘Precautionary Principle’
and ‘Sustainable Development’ principle are part of Article

30 2014 SCC Online NGT 1
31 2019 SCC OnLine NGT 69
1332 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

21 of the Constitution and Section 20 of the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010. ‘Polluter Pays’ principle does
not mean polluter can pollute and pay for it. It would
include environmental cost as well as direct cost to
people. Environmental cost is not restricted to those
which is immediately tangible but full cost for restoration
of environmental degradation32. If cheat devices leading
to pollution are ignored only on account of absence of a
procedural protocol, it will be against the said accepted
principles of environmental jurisprudence. Accepted global
procedural norm can be accepted unless prohibited in
India expressly or impliedly.
24.The law has to encourage honesty and fair dealing in
business transactions and certainly business considerations
cannot override environmental protection….”

(F) DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
79. Now that we’ve discussed the aspect of liability, let us turn our
attention to the determination of compensation for pollution-related
damage. As highlighted earlier, polluters bear the absolute liability
for the harm they cause to the environment. However, it is well
known that quantifying the extent of that damage is never an easy
task and is usually quite complex. Unlike tangible property damage,
the harm inflicted upon ecosystems—such as the destruction of
flora, fauna, aquatic life, and the disruption to micro-organisms—is
not easily measurable in monetary terms. Additionally, the impact
on local communities, particularly their livelihoods, is difficult to
assess. The loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural resources,
and long-term socio-economic consequences extend beyond the
realm of financial valuation. Therefore, while the liability is clear,
the process of determining an equitable compensation amount is
fraught with challenges, as it must account for both the tangible
and intangible damage inflicted on the environment and the affected
communities. However, we can refer to past environmental cases,
both Indian and international, to grasp the principles made therein
relating to this aspect.

32 Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1333

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

80. CASE LAWS

(i) Costa Rica v. Nicaragua33
The International Court of Justice, in the case titled “Certain
Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area [Costa Rica
v. Nicaragua, dated 02.02.2018], observed that the lack of certainty
as to the extent of damage did not preclude awarding compensation
for the impairment or loss of environmental goods and services
(paras 35 and 86). The Court ultimately stated its view to the effect
that “damage to the environment, and the consequent impairment
or the loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and
services is compensable under international law.” Thus, as per
the decision of the Court, the assessment of compensation for
damages requires the Court to be able to determine a causal link
between the wrongful act and injury suffered. While so, it was noted
that environmental damage claims had their own particular issues
concerning causation as damage could be the result of multiple
concurrent causes or the lack of scientific certainty may make it
difficult to establish the causal link. In regard to the methodology
to be used to value the impairment or loss of environment, goods
and service, the Court explained, it would select those elements of
methods offered by the Parties that provided a “reasonable basis
for valuation” to assess the value for restoration of the damaged
environment (Nicaragua) as well as the impairment of loss of goods
and services prior to recovery (Costa Rica) (para 53). The Court
justified this approach stating that there is no prescribed method
of valuation for the compensation of environmental damage under
international law and the Court would have to take into account the
specific circumstances and characteristics of each case. In other
words, the Court was refraining from adopting a single purpose
methodology for valuation of environmental damage in favor of a
case-by-case approach (para 52). The Court went on to develop
its own method of valuation of environmental damage “from the
perspective of the ecosystem as a whole”, which is an overall
assessment of the impairment or loss of environment goods or
services rather than separate valuation of each different category.

33 [2018] ICJ Rep 15
1334 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(ii) In Deepwater Horizen Oil Spill by British Petroleum case34, on
April 20, 2010, the oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, operating in the
Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded and sank resulting
in the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon and the largest
spill of oil in the history of marine oil drilling operations. 4 million
barrels of oil flowed from the damaged Macondo well over an 87-day
period, before it was finally capped on July 15, 2010. The United
States filed a complaint in District Court against BP Exploration &
Production and several other defendants alleged to be responsible for
the spill. This led to multiple civil and criminal actions being initiated
and billions of dollars in fine, settlements and restoration effort. The
Polluters claimed the award to be a one-time payment, however,
the British petroleum, allied companies and individuals were held
liable on the basis of polluter pays principle being an absolute and
continuing liability extending to restoration to a pre damage state of
affairs. The litigation lasted three phases, numerous lawsuits and a
final settlement of 20 billion US Dollars after the appeal was rejected
by the US Supreme Court in 2015.
(iii) In M.C. Mehta (supra), while dealing with Kanpur tanneries,
this court has pointed out in paragraph 14, as follows:
The financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered
as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary
treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay
minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist,
a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant
cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for
the adverse effect on the public at large which is likely to
ensue by the discharging of the trade effluents from the
tannery to the river Ganga would be immense and it will
outweigh any inconvenience that may be caused to the
management and the labour employed by it on account
of its closure. Moreover, the tanneries involved in these
cases are not taken by surprise. For several years they are
being asked to take necessary steps to prevent the flow
of untreated waste water from their factories into the river.

34 United States v. BP Exploration &amp; Prod., Inc. (In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”), 21
F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. La. 2014)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1335

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Some of them have already complied with the demand. It
should be remembered that the effluent discharged from
a tannery is ten times noxious when compared with the
domestic sewage water which flows into the river from
any urban area on its banks. We feel that the tanneries at
Jajmau, Kanpur cannot be allowed to continue to carry on
the industrial activity unless they take steps to establish
primary treatment plants.
(iv) The aspect of determining compensation has been dealt with
in detail in Adil Ansari vs M/S Gupta Exports and Ors, in Original
Application No. 220/2019, wherein the National Green Tribunal
observed as follows:
“Calculating environmental compensation:
514.Taking into consideration multifarious situations
relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis
different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of
environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining
requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC
etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC
under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air
Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management
Rules, 2016 and other Rules; and NOC for extraction and
use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar
requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed
under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC
etc. affecting environment and ecology.
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities
causing damage to environment and ecology by not
following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution
of air, water etc.
515. The above categories are further sub-divided,
i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/
organisations/associations and group of the people, in
contradistinction, to individuals; and another category,
the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
1336 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

516. Further category among above classification is, where,
besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators
action also affect the community at large regarding its
source of livelihood, health etc.
517. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to
environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of
wholly or partially restoration/remediation.
518. Determination/computation/assessment of
environmental compensation must, not only conform
the requirement of restoration/remediation but should
also take care of damage caused to the environment,
to the community, if any, and should also be preventive,
deterrent and to some extent, must have an element
of “being punitive.” The idea is not only for restoration/
remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment,
but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in
the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner
so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
519. To impose appropriate ‘environmental compensation’
for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant
factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and
nature of ‘Harmness cost’. This includes risk assessment.
The concept of risk assessment will include human-health
risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline
to understand harm caused to environment as well as
people. For the purpose of human-health risk assessment,
it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and
problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and
risk categorization. The first part involves participation of
stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect
health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood
and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and
the third step involves integration of effects and exposure
assessment to determine risk.
520. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to
determine risk of environmental harm by human activities.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1337

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

Here also we can find answer following three major steps,
i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk
characterization. First part encompasses identification of
risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists
upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to
exposure and whether exposure is likely or not to cause
adverse ecological effects. Third step is comprised of two
components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
521. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular.
Solution is not straight but involves various shades and
nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally,
there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage
and loss caused to environment due to activities carried
out individually or collectively by the people, and for
remediation/restoration. Different considerations are
applicable and have been applied.
…
525. When there is collective violation, sometimes the
issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more
than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be
equal since user’s respective capacity to produce waste,
contribution of different categories to overall costs etc.
would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to
company resulting from violation is also an important aspect
to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme
Court that the amount of environmental compensation
must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14
of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated
equally, and it has also to be taken care. Determination/
assessment/computation of environmental compensation
cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective
and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously,
Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be
based on a principle which is simple and can be applied
easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court
finds it appropriate, expert’s assessment can be sought
but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions
and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents
1338 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which have advanced cause of environment by applying
the principles of ‘sustainable development’, ‘precautionary
approach’ and ‘polluter pays’, etc.
526. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor
to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as
available in this Country, no single factor or formula may
serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative
estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/
violator and though there is some element of subjectivity
but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on
objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must
be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation
of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage
to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to
the community at large and other relevant factors like
deterrence, element of penalty etc.”
81. Further, certain guidelines for determining compensation have already
been established. It is to be noted that the Principal Bench of the NGT
vide order dated 31.08.2018 in the matter of Paryavaran Suraksha
Samiti & another v. Union of India & Ors. WP (CIVIL) No. 375/2012
observed that “CPCB may also assess and recover compensation
for the damage caused to the environment and the said fund may be
kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for
protection of the environment. Such action plan may be prepared by
the CPCB within three months”. Accordingly, the CPCB in its report
published on July 15, 2019 laid down the formula for computation of
environmental compensation. The formula for computing environment
compensation was accepted by the NGT vide its order dated August
28, 2019 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti (supra). The said formula is:
EC = PI x N x R x S x LF
Wherein, EC stands for Environmental Compensation in INR, PI
stands for Pollution Index of industrial sector, N stands for Number
of days the violation took place, R stands for a factor in INR (₹) for
compensation for the environmental harm caused by the industry,
S stands for factor for scale of operation and LF stands for location
factor.
While the CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) largely
appear to be following this formula, the NGT also took various other
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1339

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

approaches towards determining environmental compensation. It
seems that NGT has primarily adopted two methods for the imposition
of environmental compensation: (a) levying 5-10% of the project
cost as environmental compensation if it finds the industry to be
defaulting; or (b) using a percentage of the annual turnover of the
industry as the method for determining environmental compensation.

(G) GOVERNMENT PAY PRINCIPLE VIS-À-VIS RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE GOVERNMENT
82. It is also apposite to state that while polluters bear absolute liability
to compensate for environmental damage, the Governments (both
Union and State) share an equally significant responsibility to prevent
environmental degradation and ensure the implementation of effective
remedial action. Moreover, Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, empower the Central Government to issue
directions. Thus, the Central Government, with the assistance of the
State Government, RPCB or any other agency or authority, authorized,
empowered or constituted by it, if so required, is entrusted with
determining the amount required for remedial measures, ensuring
its recovery, and overseeing their execution. In fact, in Tata Housing
Development Company Ltd v. Aalok Jagga and others35 it was
observed as follows:
“35. In Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of
India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 281, this Court has made
the following observations:
‘41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an
increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological
balance. The general public is becoming aware of the
need to protect environment. Even though, laws have
been passed for the protection of environment, the
enforcement of the same has been tardy, to say the
least. With the governmental authorities not showing
any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and
with the development taking place for personal gains
at the expense of environment and with disregard of
the mandatory provisions of law, some public-spirited

35 (2019) 14 SCALE 641
1340 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

persons have been initiating public interest litigations.
The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction
by the courts for preventing environmental degradation
and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of
the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of
this Court. The primary effort of the court, while dealing
with the environmental-related issues, is to see that the
enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any
other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement
of the laws. The courts, in a way, act as the guardian of
the people’s fundamental rights but in regard to many
technical matters, the courts may not be fully equipped.
Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and
recommendations whereupon orders have been passed
from time to time. Even though, it is not the function of the
court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law, that
being the function of the Executive, but because of the
non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts
as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the
enforcement agencies to implement the law.”
83. Furthermore, we are also well aware that mere imposition of liability
might not have much impact unless it is accompanied by strict
enforceability. As mentioned earlier, in India, despite laws like the
Water Act, 1974, and Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcement
mechanisms remain weak, as evidenced by persistent pollution
in the river, 28 years after a court judgment in Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum (supra). We are conscious of the fact that normally
the government cannot be held liable for the action of third parties.
But, the State, which is entrusted with the duty to protect not only
its citizens but also the environment, cannot absolve itself from
its failure in implementing the laws and allowing the activities that
continue in violation of the laws. The role of the State is not restricted
to initial verification but also extends to continuous inspection and to
ensure compliance of all laws and orders. It is pertinent to mention
that the States could enforce the compliances of all the laws and
the orders even during renewal of any licences. Therefore, it is
equally important to recognize the role of the Government and other
regulatory bodies as well to impose upon them, a responsibility with
penalizing consequences in ensuring strict compliance with the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1341

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

orders and directions given by the Courts as well as the applicable
environmental laws and principles. In other words, while the
“Polluters Pay Principle” focuses on directly penalizing offenders,
its effectiveness is inherently tied to the vigilance and enforcement
mechanisms of the Government and regulatory bodies, and thus,
in situations where authorities fail to regulate polluters adequately,
the resultant environmental degradation underscores a shared
responsibility. The ‘Government Pay Principle’ emerges from this
context, aiming to hold governments accountable for regulatory and
enforcement lapses. Examples from countries like South Africa, and
Chile demonstrate how holding governments accountable can drive
proactive environmental protection measures:
(a) In the late 1980s, South Africa witnessed a shift towards
government compensation for environmental harm caused by
private injurers, which led to legislative intervention. Section 19
of the Environmental Conservation Act, 73 of 1989 empowers the
government to take the necessary steps to repair the damage and
to recover the cost from the polluter for its failure to take adequate
measures 36.
(b) In Chile37, the Framework Law contains provisions for citizen-suits
to address environmental harm. The law allows individuals to initiate
legal actions against local governments to recover the compensation
for environmental damage. It provides that victims of environmental
harm may require the municipality in which the activity damaging
the environment occurred to take action on their behalf, holding the
municipality jointly and severally liable for the environmental damage
suffered by the petitioner in cases of government inaction.
(c) In Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador case38, an Ecuadorian
court, when approached by an environmental activist NGO, ordered
the state agency to assess the damage and to compensate the
community, holding that the state could sue the corporation once
the assessment was completed.

36 Section 19 and 20 Environmental Conservation Act 73 of 1989.
37 Sullivan, M. (1996). Chilean environmental law. Comparative Environmental Law, 1. CHL-16
(Nicholas A. Robinson ed., 1996)
38 Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Expediente No. 221-98-RA
Corte Constitucional de Ecuador, 1998), upholding Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador, Expediente
No 1314 (Juzgado decimo primero de lo civil de Pichincga, April 15, 1998).
1342 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Thus, by holding the Governments accountable, the approach
ensures a dual-layered system of responsibility, fostering more
stringent oversight and proactive environmental governance. In
fact, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has already adopted similar
approaches by ordering Governments to compensate victims and
recover costs from polluters in the decision cited supra.

(H) REDUCTION OF POLLUTION
84. Some of the techniques / methodologies / approaches followed to
reduce the pollution caused by the industries are as under:

(a) EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)
It is a policy that generally makes producers’ responsible for the
environmental impact of their products throughout their lifecycle.
In the present case, the tannery industries owe a duty of care
to the environment and are accountable. EPR can serve as a
pivotal strategy to mitigate pollution and ensure sustainable waste
management. Tanneries must adopt traceability systems to track
waste generation, treatment, and recycling, ensuring accountability.
Financial mechanisms such as environmental fees and deposit-
refund systems could incentivize compliance, while penalties and
license revocation would deter violations. We are also of the view
that the responsibility must not be restricted just until the life cycle
of the product but also must extend until the effects are controlled,
nullified and restoration is executed.

(b) EMISSION STANDARDS - COMMAND AND CONTROL
PRINCIPLE
Emission standards are regulatory limits that specify the maximum
allowable levels of pollutants released into the environment, aiming
to protect public health and preserve environmental quality. These
standards are a key element of the Command and Control (CAC)
principle, where governments set clear, enforceable rules to limit
pollution. Under this approach, industries must comply with specific
emission limits, with penalties such as fines or imprisonment (e.g.,
under the Water Act) for non-compliance. In addition to setting
pollutant thresholds, regulators should also implement ambient
standards, focusing on the overall quality of air, water, and soil by
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1343

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

controlling pollution concentrations. Moreover, technology standards
can be enforced, requiring industries to use specific pollution-control
technologies to meet these regulatory requirements. Implementing
these standards for the tannery industry can effectively reduce pollution
and ensure long-term environmental protection.

(c) REGULAR IMPACT ASSESSMENT
While many countries have made regular monitoring a part of their
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, India officially
recognized the need for ongoing assessments only in 2020. This
development marks a significant step forward in ensuring that the
environmental impacts of projects are not only evaluated before they
begin but are also continuously monitored throughout their operational
lifespan. Therefore, similar to the mandatory EIA under the Environment
Protection Act, a Regular Impact Assessment (RIA) should be made
mandatory for all industries identified as polluting. The tanneries must
be directed submit periodical reports of the emissions, and the States
and their mechanism must conduct independent audit of the emissions
and take appropriate action. Without such regular assessments, court
orders and regulatory measures risk being ineffective in addressing
long-term environmental harm.

(d) EFFLUENT CHARGES/TAX
An effluent charge is a financial penalty or tax imposed by government
authorities on polluters, based on the amount of effluent discharged
into the environment, typically calculated in rupees per unit of pollution.
As an additional recommendation, the charge can be structured to
apply specifically to effluent released beyond the permissible limit,
with industries paying a tax per unit of excess pollution. This approach
aligns with Pigouvian taxes (pollution taxes), designed to internalize the
environmental costs of pollution. In India, introducing industry-specific
effluent charges would not only incentivize industries to reduce their
environmental impact but also help fund necessary pollution control
measures.
One key benefit of effluent charges is that they provide a mechanism for
collecting detailed financial and technological data from each polluting
source. Unlike emission standards, which primarily focus on limiting
the volume of pollution, effluent charges require continuous monitoring
1344 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of both the quantity of effluent discharged and the technologies used
to mitigate it. This enhanced data collection improves regulatory
enforcement and allows for more targeted, effective pollution control
strategies, ensuring that industries are held accountable for their
environmental impact.

(e) POLLUTANT RELEASE AND TRANSFER REGISTER (PRTR) /
PARTICIPATORY CITIZENS APPROACH
The Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) is a system that
collects and disseminates information about hazardous substance
emissions and transfers from industrial facilities, ensuring transparency
and community access to environmental data. Established in response
to events like the Bhopal Disaster and the Rio Earth Summit (1992),
PRTRs promote environmental education and participatory decision-
making under the Aarhus Convention, 1998, which emphasizes three
pillars: (a) Access to Information—citizens have the right to obtain
environmental data, which authorities must provide transparently;
(b) Public Participation—people must be informed and involved in
environmental decision-making to enhance outcomes and legitimacy;
and (c) Access to Justice—citizens can seek legal recourse for
violations of environmental laws. Despite global adoption by countries
like the U.S., Canada, and Turkey, India has yet to recognize citizens’
“right to know,” underscoring the need for public access to such crucial
environmental information. Though under the Right to Information Act,
2005, information can be collected from the State or Central Board, the
Board can disclose the compliance details, violations or actions taken
by it, only if the particulars are readily available with it. Therefore, in
public interest, the State/Central governments or Boards/departments
must issue appropriate instructions or guidelines mandating the
industries to disclose the periodical reports in the websites. Such
conditions can also be imposed while granting or renewal of any
licence or by introducing the same by including such conditions as
mandates for compliance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Another emerging concept in the corporate world is the Environmental,
Social Governance (ESG), a positive step by the corporates to pledge
their commitment to preserve the ecology by assessing their impact
on the environment. An interplay between the CSR and ESG ought
to be facilitated to ensure not only compliance of the norms but also
to ensure voluntary disclosure.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1345

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

ITALIAN TANNERIES – A CASE STUDY
85. One of the challenges in ensuring environmental compliance within
India’s tanning industry is that the majority of businesses fall under
the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) category, with only a few
large-scale entities in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, the
Italian tanning industry, primarily composed of SMEs, has however
managed to successfully limit pollution by focusing on the recovery,
treatment, and reuse of waste products such as sewage sludge,
trimmings, and shavings. According to reports, over 72% of the waste
produced is sent to recovery plants, while only materials like sludges,
paint residues, absorbent materials, non-recoverable poly-materials,
inert materials, and a few others are disposed of. Additionally, the
industry operates an interconnected system for exchanging waste
products, which minimizes both waste and costs. Further, wastewater
is treated and reused, reducing the reliance on fresh water and
preventing pollution in rivers, canals, and groundwater. To achieve
similar environmental benefits, India’s tanning industry should adopt
best practices for wastewater reuse, including recovering chromium
for reuse. Government-supported, consortium-based wastewater
treatment plants where water is reused would help safeguard the
fragile ecosystem.
86. In People Health and Development Council, represented by its
Secretary, Erode-5 vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another39, the Madras
High Court has pointed out certain effluent reduction measures as
under:
“22.The Board has also suggested that the parameter
TDS in the effluent discharged from the existing primary
and secondary treatment system could be contained
less than 2100 mg/lit. under the individual Effluent
Treatment Plants only by implementing suitable membrane
technologies (Reverse Osmosis System) with suitable
evaporation system for the rejects as tertiary treatment.
By implementing the said R.O. system, the standards of
2100 mg/lit. for TDS could be achieved and further the
permeate of R.O. system could be reused completely in the
tanning process implementing the membrane technologies

39 2005 SCC OnLine Mad 110
1346 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the effluent generated in the tanning process could be
completely recovered and reused in the process, leaving
a small quantity of rejects which could be evaporated
through suitable evaporation systems, and discharge of
treated effluent not satisfying the norms either on land
for irrigation or on land for open percolation/into water
courses could be avoided. The discharge of effluent by
the respondent tanneries, after treatment in their existing
treatment systems, on land for irrigation, without complying
the TDS norms either within unit premises or land outside
the premises owned by the unit cannot be construed as
zero discharge system.
23.In the light of our discussion, it is clear that though
all the tanneries in and around Kalingarayan channel
and Bhavani River have Effluent Treatment Plants, in
the absence of implementation of suitable membrane
technologies, namely, Reverse Osmosis system (R.O.
system), the TDS in the effluent discharged from the
existing treatment system is not under control. Undoubtedly,
all the tanneries and dying factories have to strictly adhere
to the norms namely that the effluent discharge either on
land or any water course shall not contain constituents in
excess of the tolerance limit laid down for TDS as 2100
mg/lit. In order to achieve this goal, they have to adopt
and implement suitable membrane technologies, Reverse
Osmosis system with evaporation system for the rejects
as tertiary system. This will go a long way in curbing the
environmental hazard. For compliance of the same, this
Court feels that a further reasonable time may be granted.
Accordingly, all the tanneries/dyeing units located in Erode
District are granted time till 31-08-2005. The District
Collector and the officers of the TNPCB are directed to
give wide publicity in the area concerned regarding the
direction and the extension of time granted for compliance.
It is made clear that those who are not willing to adhere to
this direction and adopt the R.O. system, they are free to
shift their concern to SIGC, Perundurai within that period.
The Collector and the officers of the Board are directed to
make periodical inspection to the tanneries/dyeing units
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1347

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

for proper implementation of the above direction. Before
conclusion, as observed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ,
though we are conscious of the fact that these tanneries
bring more employment and revenue, but life, health and
ecology have greater importance to the people…”
87. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) through its
Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), specifically the Marine Pollution
Assessment and Control Unit (MED POL) prepared a report
towards a More Sustainable Tannery Sector in the Mediterranean
aiming to improve environmental practices in the tanning industry
across Mediterranean countries. The report has also stated few
of the available tools for improving the tannery sector. BAT (Best
Alternative Technique) reference document for the tanning of hides
and skins forms part of a series presenting results of an exchange
of information between European Union (EU) Member States, the
industries concerned, non-governmental organizations promoting
environmental protection and the European Commission, to draw up,
review, and where necessary, update BAT reference documents as
required by Article 13(1) of the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and the Council on industrial emissions (integrated
pollution prevention and control). Such references can be undertaken
by the TNPCB.

(I) RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER THE WATER ACT
88. We will not reiterate the provisions of law related to the issue at
hand as it is well settled. However, we deem it necessary to highlight
the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974. The Water Act provides for the constitution
of the Central and State Pollution Control Boards and empowers
them to carry out a variety of functions. These include establishing
quality standards, research, planning and investigations to promote
cleanliness of streams and wells and to prevent and control pollution
of water. Importantly, it also provides that no industry, etc. which is
likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents, can be established by
any person without obtaining the consent of the State Board. The
aforesaid provisions are extracted below for ready reference:
“24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal
of polluting matter, etc.
1348 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—
(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any
poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in
accordance with such standards as may be laid down by
the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into
any [stream or well or sewer or on land]40; or
(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter
into any stream any other matter which may tend, either
directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede
the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner
leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of
pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sub-
section (1), by reason only of having done or caused to
be done any of the following acts, namely:—
(a) constructing, improving or maintaining in or across or
on the bank or bed of any stream any building, bridge,
weir, dam, sluice, dock, pier, drain or sewer or other
permanent works which he has a right to construct, improve
or maintain;
(b) depositing any materials on the bank or in the bed
of any stream for the purpose of reclaiming land or for
supporting, repairing or protecting the bank or bed of
such stream provided such materials are not capable of
polluting such stream;
(c) putting into any stream any sand or gravel or other
natural deposit which has flowed from or been deposited
by the current of such stream;
(d) causing or permitting, with the consent of the State
Board, the deposit accumulated in a well, pond or reservoir
to enter into any stream.
(3) The State Government may, after consultation with, or
on the recommendation of, the State Board, exempt, by

40 Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words “stream or well”
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1349

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

notification in the Official Gazette, any person from the
operation of sub-section (1) subject to such conditions,
if any, as may be specified in the notification and any
condition so specified may by a like notification be altered,
varied or amended.
25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges.—
[(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person
shall, without the previous consent of the State Board,—
(a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry,
operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system
or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to
discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well
or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this
section referred to as discharge of sewage); or
(b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge
of sewage; or
(c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage:
Provided that a person in the process of taking any
steps to establish any industry, operation or process
immediately before the commencement of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act,
1988 (53 of 1988), for which no consent was necessary
prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for
a period of three months from such commencement or,
if he has made an application for such consent, within
the said period of three months, till the disposal of such
application.
(2) An application for consent of the State Board under
sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, contain such
particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as
may be prescribed.]
(3) The State Board may make such inquiry as it may
deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred
to in sub-section (1) and in making any such inquiry shall
follow such procedure as may be prescribed.
1350 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(4) The State Board may—
(a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1), subject
to such conditions as it may impose, being—
(i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section
(1) of section 25, conditions as to the point of discharge of
sewage or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet
for discharge of sewage;
(ii)in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the
nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of
discharge of the effluent from the land or premises from
which the discharge or new discharge is to be made; and
(iii) that the consent will be valid only for such period as may
be specified in the order, and any such conditions imposed
shall be binding on any person establishing or taking any
steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or
treatment and disposal system of extension or addition
thereto, or using the new or altered outlet, or discharging
the effluent from the land or premises aforesaid; or
(b) refuse such consent for reasons to be recorded in
writing.
(5) Where, without the consent of the State Board, any
industry, operation or process, or any treatment and
disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, is
established, or any steps for such establishment have
been taken or a new or altered outlet is brought into use
for the discharge of sewage or a new discharge of sewage
is made, the State Board may serve on the person who
has established or taken steps to establish any industry,
operation or process, or any treatment and disposal
system or any extension or addition thereto, or using
the outlet, or making the discharge, as the case may be,
a notice imposing any such conditions as it might have
imposed on an application for its consent in respect of
such establishment, such outlet or discharge.
(6) Every State Board shall maintain a register containing
particulars of the conditions imposed under this section
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1351

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

and so much of the register as relates to any outlet, or to
any effluent, from any land or premises shall be open to
inspection at all reasonable hours by any person interested
in, or affected by such outlet, land or premises, as the
case may be, or by any person authorised by him in this
behalf and the conditions so contained in such register
shall be conclusive proof that the consent was granted
subject to such conditions.] (7) The consent referred to in
sub-section (1) shall, unless given or refused earlier, be
deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry
of a period of four months of the making of an application
in this behalf complete in all respects to the State Board.
(8) For the purposes of this section and sections 27 and
30,—
(a) the expression “new or altered outlet” means any
outlet which is wholly or partly constructed on or after
the commencement of this Act or which (whether so
constructed or not) is substantially altered after such
commencement;
(b) the expression “new discharge” means a discharge
which is not, as respects to nature and composition,
temperature, volume, and rate of discharge of the effluent
substantially a continuation of a discharge made within
the preceding twelve months (whether by the same or a
different outlet), so however that a discharge which is in
other respects a continuation of previous discharge made
as aforesaid shall not be deemed to be a new discharge
by reason of any reduction of the temperature or volume
or rate of discharge of the effluent as compared with the
previous discharge.
26. Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage
or trade effluent.—
Where immediately before the commencement of this Act
any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent
into a [stream or well or sewer or on land]41, the provisions

41 Subs. by Act 44 of 1978, s. 13, for “stream or well” (w.e.f. 12-12-1978)
1352 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation
to such person as they apply in relation to the person
referred to in that section subject to the modification that
the application for consent to be made under sub-section
(2) of that section [shall be made on or before such date as
may be specified by the State Government by notification
in this behalf in the Official Gazette].
43. Penalty for contravention of provisions of section
24
Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 24 shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than [one year and six months]42 but which
may extend to six years and with fine.
44. Penalty for contravention of section 25 or section 26
Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 25 or
section 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than [one year and six months]43
but which may extend to six years and with fine.”
89. In Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Nicosulf Indst.& Exports
Pvt Ltd44, a complaint was filed under various sections of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, against M/s.
Nicosulf Industries & Exports Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for allegedly
discharging 10,800 liters of polluted water daily during nicotine
sulphate production, where the court held that under sections
24 and 25 of the Act, every industry is compulsorily required to
obtain prior permission or approval of the Board for discharging its
polluted water either within or outside the industry as per section
25(i) of the Act.
90. Additionally, in the 1983 case of U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s.
Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Others45, relating to Gomti River pollution
caused by the respondent therein, faced prolonged delays. The High
court gave its judgment in 1999 and thereafter, this court held that

42 Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words “six months
43 Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words “six months
44 2009 (2) SCC 171
45 2000 (3) SCC 745
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1353

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company,
every person who was in charge of and was responsible for the
company’s conduct of business, is also guilty of the offence.
91. Thus, it is evident that Vellore’s current status highlights the critical
consequences of unchecked industrialization and exploitation
of natural resources. The district, once known for its agricultural
prosperity and natural resources, now faces a grave environmental
crisis driven by pollution from the tanning industries, illegal sand
mining, and poor waste management. These activities have
degraded vital ecosystems, polluted water bodies like the River
Palar and reduced the groundwater availability, severely impacting
the livelihoods of farmers, fishermen, and local communities.
91.1. In the light of the principles outlined above, this Court has
the duty to foster a more comprehensive, balanced, and
sustainable approach to curb the water pollution in the river.
The principles mentioned not only ensure compliance but also
encourage long-term strategies for environmental protection,
public health, and sustainable development. Moreover, the legal
position is clear: until the damage caused by the tanneries to
the ecology is reversed, the polluters have a continuing duty to
pay compensation and further, it is the bounden duty of both
the Central and State Governments and local authorities to
prevent, protect and preserve natural resources and maintain
a healthy and clean environment.

VII. ECOCIDE
92. Before we proceed with our discussions and findings, we also want
to highlight the emerging concept of ecocide, which has gained
significant attention in the environmental discourse. Ecocide is
defined as ‘unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that
there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or
long-term damage to the environment.’ Acts such as the pollution
of rivers with untreated sewage, illegal sand mining, large-scale
deforestation etc. fall under this definition. The environmental
damage occurring in Vellore District could even be categorized
as ecocide, underscoring the urgency of addressing and halting
such activities.
1354 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

VIII. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
93. Earlier, this Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra)
extensively considered the issue of pollution caused by tanneries in
the Vellore District and its adverse impact on human lives, soil, water,
agriculture, etc. and rendered a land mark decision, issuing various
directions to the authorities concerned. Pursuant to the same, vide
notification dated 30.09.1996, the Central Government constituted the
LoEA to assess the damage caused, frame a scheme for reversal of
the damage, identify affected individuals / families and compute the
compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the LoEA passed its first
award on 07.03.2001, identifying 29,193 affected individuals / families
in respect of 15,164.96 hectares in 186 villages within 7 Taluks of
Vellore District and determined the compensation for the period from
12.08.1991 to 31.12.1998. It was clearly stated in the said award that
the liability of the polluting industries continued beyond 31.12.1998
until the damage caused to the ecology and environment by pollution
was fully reversed. Though the said award dated 07.03.2001 was
initially challenged by the AISHTMA in WP.No.512 of 2002, the High
Court affirmed the award, by order dated 22.03.2002 and hence, it
attained finality. It is also to be noted that by order dated 07.04.2016,
WP No.23291 of 2006 seeking a direction to the authorities to make
the LoEA a permanent body, came to be dismissed by the High Court.
94. Aggrieved that the entire compensation amount awarded by the
LoEA vide award dated 07.03.2001 has not been disbursed to all
the affected individuals / families and only a part of it was disbursed
till date; the tannery industries continuing to discharge effluents into
the River Palar; and that no scheme has been framed to reverse
the damage caused to the ecology by the state Government, the
appellant / Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee filed
WP.No.8335 of 2008 as a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions
to the authorities concerned to pay compensation for the further loss
caused to the affected families from 1998 onwards until the damage
caused to the ecology is reversed, etc.
95. Pending the aforesaid writ petition, the LoEA based on the orders of
the High Court as well as this Court proceeded to assess the damage
caused to the ecology. The AISHTMA objected to the same by filing a
reply stating that the LoEA cannot investigate the pollution caused by
the industries after the award dated 07.03.2001 and thereby assess
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1355

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

the quantum of pollution. The LoEA rejected the said objection by
order dated 05.05.2009, which was challenged by the AISHTMA in
WP No.19017 of 2009.
96. Thereafter, the LoEA considered all the applications relating to the
period from 1991-98, which were not covered by the award dated
07.03.2001 and assessed a compensation of Rs.2,91,01,278/- to be
payable to 1377 affected individuals/ families, by its second award
dated 24.08.2009. This award was subsequently challenged by the
AISHTMA in WP.No.22683 of 2009.
97. After due contest, the High Court by two separate orders dated
08.02.2010 viz., one in W.P.Nos.8335 of 2008 and 19017 of 2009
and another in W.P.No.22683 of 2009, rejected the reliefs sought in
the public interest litigation, but set aside the order dated 05.05.2009
passed by the LoEA and affirmed the second award dated 24.08.2009.
These two orders are now put to challenge before us by the aggrieved
parties.
98. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4
raised an objection that the AISHTMA preferred the Special Leave
Petition along with an application to condone the delay of 439 days
in filing the same and the same came to be registered as SLP(C)
No.26608 of 2011, without there being any order condoning the
said delay. The record of proceedings discloses no order regarding
the condonation of delay in filing the said petition. While it may be
true that the AISHTMA in order to defeat the claim of the appellant
in SLP(C)Nos.22633-22634 of 2010 filed the petition in SLP(C)
No.26608 of 2011 as a counter blast, it cannot be disputed that they
have been actively contesting the appeals filed by the Vellore District
Environment Monitoring Committee, in their capacity as Respondent
No.4 in SLP (C)No.23633 of 2010 and Respondent No.3 in SLP (C)
No.23634 of 2010. Moreover, the issues involved in all the appeals
are interconnected and intertwined. Therefore, in the larger public
interest, we overlook the mistake committed by the Registry and
condone the delay in filing the petition, though not condoned earlier.
99. As already pointed out by us, the award dated 07.03.2001 passed by
the LoEA has attained finality, in view of the order dated 22.03.2002
passed by the High Court in W.P.No.512 of 2002. It is the case of
the contesting respondent in SLP (C) Nos.23633-23634 of 2010
and the appellant in SLP (C) No.26608 of 2011 / AISHTMA that the
1356 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

compensation and the fund determined in the said award were paid
by the industries and the same were also disbursed to the affected
individuals / families.
100. However, the appellant / AISHTMA challenged the subsequent award
dated 24.08.2009 passed by the LoEA, mainly contending that
there were no claims pending against the industries; and that the
High Court, in the order dated 20.12.2007, made in W.P.No.23291
of 2006, had not issued any direction to the LoEA to consider the
left-out claims for the period 1991-98 and it merely recorded the
submission of the learned counsel that the LoEA would consider all
the applications filed before the cut-off-date, which are pending as
well as the applications filed after the cut-off-date and decide them
in accordance with law and grant compensation wherever the case
is made out and therefore, the industries are not liable to pay any
compensation for the period 1991-1998.
101. It may be true that the High Court did not explicitly pass an order
directing the LoEA to consider the left-out claims for the period
from 1991-1998, but after having given an undertaking before the
High Court that the left-out claims would be considered, the LoEA
cannot tactically choose to shrug off the said undertaking. Moreover,
only because of the undertaking given by the LoEA, the High Court
deemed it unnecessary to issue such a direction, expecting that
the LoEA would comply with its own undertaking. It is also pertinent
to mention here that the LoEA was tasked with duty to assess the
damage, identify the areas and the individuals/families affected by the
pollution. While the LoEA was empowered to identify the individuals/
families that have suffered during the relevant period, it goes without
saying that the LoEA would have the authority to admit new claims
if they are found to be genuine. The Doctrine of Implied Authority
would automatically come into operation. The error or lapse, if any,
on the part of the LoEA cannot affect the right of the residents who
have been left out, more so considering that the right persists in
view of the continuing pollution. Therefore, we reject the contention
so raised by the learned counsel for the AISHTMA.
102. Apparently, vide award dated 24.08.2009, the LoEA identified
1,377 persons and determined the compensation amount to be Rs.
2,91,01,278/- for them. It was clearly stated in the said award that
it was passed only in respect of the individuals / families, who were
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1357

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

left out of the earlier award dated 07.03.2001, which has attained
finality. It is also evident that the award was passed after issuing
due notice to all the parties and that, the AISHTMA did not raise
any grounds relating to non-adherence to the procedure for taking
samples, as provided in Rule 6 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986, before the LoEA either in its reply or at the time of personal
hearing. It is not the case of the AISHTMA that the samples tested
are not from the tanneries. Therefore, the technical objection raised
now is only an after thought. Hence, the other grounds raised by
the AISHTMA with respect to violation of the principles of natural
justice and the Rules, against the award dated 24.08.2009, cannot
be countenanced by us.
103. Upon considering all the factors, the High Court while rejecting the
challenge to the award dated 24.08.2009, referred to the left-out claims
as a continuation of the earlier award and held the same as not bad
in law. It was also pointed out by the High Court that by award dated
07.03.2001, the LoEA, after conducting a field survey and verifying the
revenue records, filtered 1377 cases out of 7422 claims as affected
individuals / families eligible for compensation due to ecological
damage to their lands. By following a similar methodology, the LoEA
determined a total compensation of Rs.2,91,01,278/- payable to the
affected individuals / families and passed the subsequent award dated
24.08.2009. Also, the High Court rejected the appellant / AISHTMA’s
contention regarding limitation, holding that the polluter’s liability is
an absolute liability and the polluter cannot escape from the liability
once it is established that it caused pollution; that, delay in passing
the subsequent award will not preclude the left-out individuals /
families from making any application for claiming compensation.
It was further observed that the LoEA is not expected to function
as a civil court, although it has to follow just and fair procedure. It
was also pointed out that although the appellant / AISHTMA was
not a party to the writ petition in WP.No.23291 of 2006, in which,
the High Court passed the order, directing the LoEA to consider all
the claims, the industries, which were found to be polluters even by
this Court in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum, cannot absolve their
liability to pay compensation by applying the Polluter Pays Principle.
Therefore, we do not find any reason, much less a valid reason, to
interfere with the well-considered order passed by the High Court
in W.P.No.22683 of 2009.
1358 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

104. Next, we turn to the order passed by the High Court in W.P.Nos.8335
of 2008 and 19017 of 2009. It is the specific case of the appellant
in SLP(C)No.23633 of 2010 that only a part of the compensation
has been disbursed to the identified affected individuals / families
and crores of rupees are yet to be collected; no scheme has been
implemented for the reversal of the damage caused to ecology and
environment; the industries continue to discharge effluents and they
are not maintaining the standard expected of them and thus, the
damage caused to the environment has only been exacerbated.
Thus, this according to the appellant, entitles the affected individuals/
families to receive compensation beyond 31.12.1998 till the damage
to the ecology is reversed. It is also submitted that a large number
of tanneries are operating beyond the permissible limit and hence,
they should be closed.
105. Though the appellant in SLP (C)No.23633 of 2010 sought multiple
reliefs by filing Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.8335 of 2008, the
High Court rejected the same on the ground that except for asserting
that a number of affected persons had not received the compensation
amount, the appellant had not taken any steps to furnish the details
of the individuals / families, who had received either only a part of
the compensation amount or had not received any compensation
amount at all and in the absence of supportive material, the claim
of the appellant could not be entertained.
106. We are of the opinion that the details of the affected individuals /
families are already available with the District Collector, and the
LoEA after obtaining those particulars, has awarded compensation
to them. Hence, the failure of the appellant to furnish the details
regarding the receipt of compensation by the affected individuals /
families, cannot be a reason to reject the claim of the appellant
concerning the disbursement of compensation to all the affected
individuals / families. In our view, the High Court must have directed
either the District Collector or the LoEA to produce the details or in
the alternative, must have directed LoEA to verify the claims and
issued appropriate directions.
107. In respect of the other reliefs made by the appellant in SLP (C)
Nos.23633-23634 of 2010, it is pertinent to mention that the High
Court by order dated 10.04.2008 in MP.No.1 of 2008 in WP No.8335
of 2008, inter alia directed the LoEA to make enquiries as to whether
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1359

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

the polluters complied with the conditions of the award and to assess
the compensation within four months, and the damage caused to the
ecology since 1999. Even in the petition filed in MP.No.2 of 2008 in
WP.No.8335 of 2008 by the appellant / AISHTMA, seeking to vacate
the said order dated 10.04.2008, the High Court directed the LoEA
to pass the order only after hearing the contentions of the AISHTMA.
Accordingly, the LoEA issued due notices to all the parties, to which,
AISHTMA filed its reply. Thereafter, the LoEA passed the order dated
05.05.2009, rejecting the objection raised by AISHTMA with regard
to assessing the damage caused by the tanneries to the ecology
beyond 1998 in the Vellore District.
108. The order dated 05.05.2009 would demonstrate that the LoEA took
note of all the contentions raised by the AISHTMA, such as, the
installation of IETPs and CETPs, expenditure of crores of rupees
on pollution control measures as suggested by NEERI and CLRl,
and the Government owing a duty to arrest pollution on their part,
industries having earned income to the Government in crores of
rupees, and thus, any liability being fixed on the industries must be
borne by the Government, and hence, the industries have no liability
to pay any compensation subsequent to the award period and the
payment under the award is one time settlement. The fact that the
industries represented by AISHTMA continue to pollute and that
the pollution levels have not decreased even after the installation
of some pollution control devices, and noting that the process of
installing reverse osmosis plants is still in its initial stages, and also
in the light of the legal position that the liability to pay compensation
is based on the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’, and the ‘Precautionary
Principle’ stressing the need to arrest pollution as laid down by this
Court, the LoEA passed the said order dated 05.05.2009 rejecting
all the contentions raised by the AISHTMA. However, the High Court
erroneously set aside the said order passed by the LoEA by the
order impugned herein, neglecting the object and misconstruing the
scope and authority of the LoEA.
109. The learned counsel for the AISHTMA before us submitted that
since the decision of this Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
(supra), the Tanning Industries of Vellore District have fully complied
with all the directions issued by this Court from time to time and
played their role in preventing any further damage to the ecology
from their side. Placing reliance on the reports of the CPCB and
1360 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the TNPCB, the learned counsel submitted that all tanneries in
Vellore District are either connected to CETPs or have their own
IETPs and all of them are equipped with ZLD Systems which are
operational and functional; and that, both the authorities have
reported that no discharge of treated or untreated effluent has been
noticed either on land or into the River Palar. Furthermore, more
than 80% of the water is reused and the solid wastes generated
are being disposed of in a secured landfill system. It was also
submitted that the industries have paid in full the compensation
due to individuals/families and have also paid a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each as imposed by this Court by its judgment dated 28.08.199646
towards the Environmental Protection Fund which is intended for
the reversal of the damage to the ecology. Thus, according to the
AISHTMA, it is for the Central and State Governments to utilize the
said amount and take steps to complete the process of reversal at
the earliest. The industries cannot be made liable for any alleged
damage beyond 31.12.1998, as they have already taken necessary
steps to control the pollution and several tanneries have installed
reverse osmosis plants.
110. Indisputably, the award of the LoEA dated 07.03.2001 which was
passed pursuant to the judgment of this court in Vellore Citizen
Welfare Forum (supra), clearly mentioned that the liability of the
industries continues until the damage caused to the ecology and
environment by pollution is reversed. It is borne out from the
records that the industries have taken steps to achieve ZLD and to
reverse the damage caused to the ecology, deposited certain sums.
However, the same have not been achieved till date and still remain
a work in progress. In such circumstances, the industries will remain
responsible for the further and continuing pollution caused to the
ecology. Therefore, the alleged payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each
towards the Environmental Protection Fund made by the industries
cannot absolve them of their liability to pay compensation until
the damage to the ecology is reversed by meeting the standards
prescribed by the Pollution Control Board and by adhering to the
schemes implemented and directions passed by the government.
Though the leather industry in India has become a major source of
foreign exchange and Tamil Nadu is presently the leading exporter

46 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1361

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

of finished leather, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the
country’s export, the same does not give the industry the right to
destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a threat to
health of the residents. In such view of the matter, the order of the
High Court passed in WP Nos.8335 of 2008 and 17019 of 2009,
requires some degree of interference by us.
111. According to the AISHTMA, they have already deposited Rs.26.82
crores towards compensation for the affected families / individuals, in
addition to Rs.3.66 crores towards the Environmental Protection Fund
for the purpose of reversal and restoration of the ecology between
1991-98. As per the awards dated 07.03.2001 and 24.08.2009
passed by the LoEA, the total compensation payable to the affected
individuals / families amounts to Rs.29.73 Crores. The supplementary
affidavit dated 29.11.2013 filed by the Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, Environment & Forest Department, Govt. of Tamil
Nadu, clearly outlined the collection of compensation amounts from
the tanneries, the details of which are as follows:

1. Total number of tanneries responsible for 547
payment of compensation
2. Total amount to be collected from the tanneries 29.73 crores
for compensation as fixed by the Loss of
Ecology Authority for two awards (Rs.26.82
+ Rs.2.91 crores)
3. Total amount to be collected from the tanneries 3.66 crores
for reversal of Ecology
4. Total amount to be collected (2 + 3) 33.39 crores
5. Amount collected as on 22.08.2013 27.67 crores
6. Amount collected from 23.08.2013 to 1.13 crores
06.09.2013
7. Total amount collected as on 07.09.2013 (5+6) 28.80 crores
8. Balance as on 07.09.2013 (4-7) 4.59 crores
9. Less non-collectable balance 0.87 crores
10. Net collectable balance 3.72 crores
1362 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The aforesaid affidavit further disclosed that pursuant to the order of
this Court, dated 20.02.2013 in SLP(C)Nos.23633-23634 of 2010, a
compensation amount of Rs.4.48 crores was disbursed to the affected
individuals / families by the District authorities. Additionally, an amount
of Rs.1.15 crores is held by the Divisional officers which would be
disbursed as and when the issues are settled, either through court
of law or out of court.
112. The reports filed by the TNPCB and CPCB clearly state that 8
CETPs along with their Member units and 26 IETPs are equipped
with operational and functional ZLD Plants; regular monitoring is
being carried out by the TNPCB to ensure proper functioning of
the ZLD Plants; and any directions, in case of violations, are being
complied with by the concerned units. All the CETPs and IETPs
are connected to the Care Air Centre for Online Monitoring by both
TNPCB and CPCB. Reverse Osmosis Plants have been established
in most of the Units, while steps are being taken to establish them
in the remaining units under the supervision of the State Pollution
Control Board. However, there is no concrete assertion that ZLD
has been fully achieved by the industries. Further, the report reveals
that STPs have been provided for Sewage management in only two
municipalities and untreated sewage continues to be discharged
into the river.
113. Admittedly, the standard upper limit of pollution in treated effluent is
2100 mg/1 of TDS content and the same has not been maintained
by the industries. The same level of pollution is present in wells
and other water sources in the areas. Hence, the industries which
continue to pollute the environment, and thereby violate Section 24
of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, cannot
absolve themselves of their liability, merely on the ground that some
payment was made by them to the Government in compliance with
the directions of this Court. The liability of the industries for the
pollution caused by them did not cease in the year 1998 by merely
paying the compensation amount. Rather it is a continuing liability
that persists until the actual pollution is curbed/ its effects reversed. In
other words, the polluting industries are liable to reverse the damage
to the environment and ecology as long as the tanneries continue
to pollute the environment. At the same time, the Government has
not implemented the scheme for reversal and restoration of ecology
till date, despite the LoEA having drafted the same in the year 2001
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1363

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

itself. While it may be true that the details of the affected individuals /
families cannot be ascertained at this distant point of time, this alone
cannot be a reason to withhold the compensation amount payable
to the affected individuals / families, until the damage caused to the
ecology is reversed. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that by
applying the Government Pay Principle, it is for the Government to
pay compensation to the affected individuals / families and recover
the same from the polluters, until the damage caused to the ecology
is fully reversed. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court is
liable to be modified by this Court.

IX. CONCLUSION
114. The overall analysis clearly demonstrates that tanneries are among
the most polluting industries and the damage caused by them by
discharging untreated or partially treated effluents into the River Palar
and surrounding areas, has resulted in irreversible damage to the
water bodies, groundwater, and agricultural lands. This environmental
degradation has impoverished local farmers and has caused immense
suffering to the local residents and the tannery workers, thereby
endangering public health and life. In fact, it would not be wrong to say
that the condition of tannery workers is no better than that of manual
scavengers. With a majority of workers being women, the situation is
even more distressing. It is also abundantly clear that the discharges
were neither authorized nor in compliance with the standards set by the
Pollution Control Boards. Though the reports indicate the establishment
of CETPs and IETPs, the industries have still not achieved ZLD, till
date. Furthermore, the industries have not complied with the extant
statutory guidelines framed by the Government as per the appellant
/ Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee. At the same
time, the report also reveals that the tannery industry is not the sole
polluter affecting the river. Other pollutant, such as untreated sewage
and solid wastes generated in the towns are also being dumped
into the river. Despite the responsibility of the municipalities to treat
sewage, no effective steps have been taken and untreated sewage
continues to be released directly into the river. It is disheartening to
hear a worker describe the chemical pollution as “so powerful it can
melt the dead - it’s only a matter of time before it begins to melt the
living”. All of this occurs while various Supreme Court directives and
environmental norms are flouted, and the schemes or plans framed
1364 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

by the Government remain on paper, failing to achieve any meaningful
results. Thus, this Court, being the custodian of fundamental rights,
must come to the rescue of the affected individuals / families and
ensure that persistent wrongs are rectified and justice is actually done.

X. RESULT
115. Therefore, we deem it fit to issue certain directions to the stake
holders, which are as under:
(i) The State government is directed to pay the compensation
amount to all the affected families / individuals, if not already
paid, in terms of the awards dated 07.03.2001 and 24.08.2009
passed by the LoEA within six weeks from today,
(ii) The State government is also directed to recover the compensation
amount from the polluters, if not already recovered, by initiating
proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act or through any
other means permissible by law.
(iii) The State government in consultation with the Central
Government, shall within a period of four weeks, constitute
a committee, under the chairmanship of a retired High Court
Judge and members, comprising of the Secretaries of both
the State and Central Departments, environmental experts,
representatives from the affected communities, and any other
person as it deems fit, for the purpose of conducting an audit to
identify, maintain and create a clean and healthy environment
in Vellore District.
(iv) The Committee shall carry out the following tasks and ensure
its implementation until the damage caused to the ecology is
reversed:
(a) In view of the decision arrived at by us, the committee shall
scrutinize applications received from affected individuals/
families seeking compensation beyond 1998, assess their
claims, award compensation, and disburse it from the fund
maintained by the Government.
(b) Formulate a comprehensive scheme to reverse the
ecological damage in the affected areas. Such a scheme
shall incorporate advanced techniques and best practices,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1365

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

as applicable, adopted by other State Governments and
foreign countries.
(c) Issue appropriate directions to the State/Central Pollution
Control Board and departments to prohibit industries and
municipalities from discharging untreated effluents into the
River Palar and other water bodies.
(d) Identify critical zones in the district as No Discharge Zones
to safeguard the quality of water resources, particularly
groundwater, from contamination by industrial and domestic
waste.
(e) Identify locations where new CETPs and IETPs are required,
and where industries can be feasibly connected to these
systems. Based on the same, direct the establishment of
such plants to strengthen the pollution control infrastructure.
(f) Address the deficiencies of existing CETPs, IETPs, and
other pollution control mechanisms by ensuring their
effective functioning and proper maintenance.
(g) Make any other recommendations that may be required
to ensure continuous monitoring and compliance of the
standards to ensure ZLD within a period of three months
and submit a report to the State and central Governments/
Boards which shall be implemented by the State/Central
Government/Board,
(h) Ensure that State Pollution Control Board / Central Pollution
Control Board is strictly complying with the relevant
guidelines for monitoring and regulating the industries and
file a report before this Court within four months from the
date of constitution,
(v) Since pollution is a continuing wrong until the condition is
reversed, the polluters shall be liable to compensate the victims
and liable for the damage and the Committee constituted as per
direction (iii) LoEA (present) is directed to periodically assess
and pass appropriate orders till then,
(vi) the State shall implement the suggestions of the committee to
formulate and implement a comprehensive rejuvenation plan for
the Palar River, which includes removing pollutants, desilting, and
1366 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ensuring adequate water flow and direct the concerned authorities
and bodies to accomplish the same within a time frame,
(vii) The State shall ensure quarterly inspections of tanning industries
in the district to assess compliance with environmental regulations
and publish a report in its website disclosing all the material
particulars. The inspection team shall verify whether the industries
are established within permissible distances from prohibited
zones, the status of ZLD compliance by the industries, and
other relevant aspects.
(viii) the State shall facilitate a conduct of environment audit of each
river in the State, ascertain the pollution, degradation, change
in storage capacity, depletion of groundwater level and publish
the results in the website, newspapers, media, and other public
platforms,
(ix) the State shall mandate the installation of IoT-based sensors
at discharge points, rivers, and groundwater wells to monitor
water quality in real time.
(x) the State shall direct that AI systems shall be employed to analyze
the data collected from IoT sensors and industry discharge
reports, and any discrepancies from prescribed discharge limits
shall be flagged for prompt regulatory response,
(xi) The State Pollution Control Board / Central Pollution Control
Board shall in co-ordination with State government, set emission
standards for the tannery industry in alignment with international
environmental standards and take into consideration the
recommendations of national and international regulatory bodies.
Additionally, assess the feasibility of imposing effluent charges,
which would be levied per unit of waste or discharge released,
as a penal measure to enforce compliance,
(xii) The State Pollution Control Board /Central Pollution Control
Board shall direct the industries to display effluent and discharge
data, including chemical composition, on a publicly accessible
notice board every three days and in case the standards are
not met, direct the authorities to ensure compliance with the
prescribed norms.
(xiii) The Central Government/Central Pollution Control Board shall
issue appropriate directions to align the ESG and CSR of the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1367

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

industry/tannery towards voluntary disclosure and compliance
of environmental norms,
(xiv) the State Pollution Control Board shall establish platforms through
which citizens can report pollution incidents and monitor the
corrective actions taken.
(xv) the authorities concerned shall take immediate and strict action
against industries that fail to meet compliance standards,
including closure in cases of persistent violations.
(xvi) The licencing authorities couched with the power to issue licences,
are by virtue of the implied authority, entitled to cancel such
licence/permits, not only for the fraud or the misrepresentation
made to secure to such licence, but also for violation of the
terms and conditions of such licence and any other applicable
law, as any licence granted by an authority cannot be used to
violate any law of the land and there cannot be any estoppel
against law,
(xvii) the State Pollution Control Board shall direct industries and
relevant authorities to prioritize the reuse and recycling of waste
generated, and work towards the development of sustainable
solutions.
(xviii) the State Pollution Control Board shall publish real-time water
quality data on an open-access platform to ensure transparency.
(xix) the State/Pollution Control Board shall order the construction
and operationalisation of adequate Sewage Treatment Plants
(STPs) in urban and peri-urban areas to address wastewater
management.
(xx) the State/ Pollution Control Board shall issue appropriate
directions to ensure that all workers are provided with protective
gear and that adequate emergency protocols are in place to
prevent untoward incidents and the provisions of the Factories
Act and other labour laws, including coverage of health and life
insurance schemes, are followed in strict compliance,
(xxi) the State shall direct that every industry/tanner is to conduct
annual health checkups for workers to detect potential risks
of cancer and other severe diseases and ensure that prompt
medical assistance should be provided, ensuring that workers
are not left to fend for themselves.
1368 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(xxii) The CLRI, MoeF etc., shall invest more resources in training
and promoting their eco-friendly technologies to ensure their
wide adoption by the industries. The State shall ensure that the
industries adopt and follow technologies, suggest by CLRI, MoEF
and other relevant authorities to ensure strict compliance with the
norms and to ensure ZLD and meet the prescribed standards,
(xxiii) The authority concerned shall direct the Bureau of Indian
Standards and relevant industries to explore the possibility of
an ethical and sustainability mark/tag, enabling consumers to
make informed choices.
(xxiv) The State government shall ensure the implementation of the ban
on illegal sand mining and establish a monitoring committee to
oversee sand mining operations, utilizing real-time surveillance
mechanisms such as drones and GPS, implement stringent action
against offenders, including the perpetual seizure of equipment
and vehicles involved in illegal mining activities.
(xxv) The State shall form a state-level committee comprising
representatives from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), and the Secretary
of Home. This committee should be responsible for presenting
an annual compliance report to the concerned High Court or
National Green Tribunal (NGT). The CPCB must ensure and
render complete co-operation,
(xxvi) The primary task of enforcement lies with the State Pollution
Control Boards and concerned District Magistrates. Hence, the
State government shall set up a District Level Committee. Any
complaint to the District Level Committee headed by the District
Magistrate and comprising of SPCB officials must be addressed
within 30 days, if there is delay, grounds be conveyed to the
complainant. Any complaints against the action which includes
inaction shall lie before the State Level Committee and if still
the issue is not resolved, NGT may be approached.
(xxvii) the State shall promote schemes/programmes and seminars
to promote, encourage, and raise awareness regarding an
ecosystem-based approach to water management, co-ordinate
with concerned bodies to rehabilitate wetlands, protect riparian
zones, and enhance the overall ecological health of water bodies.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1369

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary
Mr. R. Rajebdran v. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others

(xxviii) The Central and State Governments shall take adequate
measures and allocate funds to maintain a clean and healthy
environment.
116. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
(a) the order passed by the High Court in WP Nos.8335 of
2008 and 19017 of 2009 stands modified and the appeals filed
by the Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee stands
disposed of; and
(b) the order passed by the High Court in WP No. 22683 of
2009, thereby confirming the award dated 24.08.2009 passed
by the LoEA, is upheld and the appeal filed by the AISHTMA
is dismissed.
117. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous application(s),
if any, shall stand disposed of.
118. Post the matters after four months “for reporting compliance”.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
Matters posted for reporting compliance.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain