Vedanta Limited V. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Admin

3 months ago

Table of Contents

Toggle

Bench

Three Judge Bench with CJI. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala, J.Manoj Misra.

Court

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Petitioner

Vedanta Limited.

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors..

Facts of the case

Sterlite Industries Ltd operates a copper smelter plant at the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu ltd.Industrial Complex in Thoothukudi,Tamil Nadu. The plant was granted environmental clearance by the Ministry of Environment,Forest and Climate Change and the TNPCB granted consent under the Air and Water Acts.However,environmental clearances were challenged by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee recommended revoked the environmental clearance for the proposed expansion.The Madras High Court quashed the environmental clearances and directed the plant closure. Residents in nearby areas complained of irritation,throat infection and breathing problems due to emissions from sterlite Industries.

Background of the Case

The Special Leave Petitions arise from a judgment dated 18 August 2020 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of ten petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A series of orders passed in April and May 2018 by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and by the Government of Tamil Nadu and an order dated 29 March 2013 passed by the former form the subject of the challenge. By the orders impugned, the copper smelter operated by the petitioner (Vedanta Limited) at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu was directed to be closed for violations of numerous environmental norms.

Initially, there was a challenge before the National Green Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was placed in issue before this Court by the TNPCB and became the subject matter of a judgment delivered by this Court on 18 February 2019, reported as Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. While coming to the conclusion that there was an absence of jurisdiction on the part of the National Green Tribunal, this Court granted liberty to the operator of the unit to move the High Court in appropriate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This resulted in the institution of the petitions before the High Court, as noticed above, and the judgment of the High Court which has been questioned in these proceedings.

Judgment of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India case:

An earlier judgment of this Court, reported as Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India, concerned the same unit as in the present proceedings. Environmental clearances were granted to the unit in 1995 and it commenced production in 1997. Separate writ petitions were instituted before the High Court, inter alia for directions to cancel the environmental clearances; close the operation of the unit; and to the state to take action against the unit for its failure to take safety measures to remedy pollution and to protect against industrial accidents. By an order dated 28 September 2010, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the unit be closed.

Judgment of the Case:

Violations of environmental norms and consequent harm

In the impugned judgment, the High Court inter alia found that:

The unit had operated without consent from TNPCB for about sixteen years;
The unit had operated without hazardous waste management authorisation for about ten years;
The unit did not have appropriate systems in place for the disposal of hazardous waste;
There was a substantial presence of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the water;
The unit dumped large amounts of copper slag, leading to air and water pollution. The dumped copper slag also caused the river in Thootukudi to flood. This was a violation of the conditions in terms of which the relevant authorities had granted consent;
The unit failed to comply with the requirement of maintaining a green belt;
The regulator, TNPCB, did not exercise its powers in a timely and effective fashion, as mandated by law; and
TNPCB established that the unit flouted the law for over twenty-two years. There was no error in the decision of the authorities to direct the closure of the unit.

2. The High Court did not commit an error of jurisdiction.

Essentially, five grounds were urged in the orders for the closure of the unit.

They are:

The unit had failed to furnish groundwater examination reports to ascertain the impact on groundwater quality;
An extensive amount of copper slag lying on third party land had not been removed. A physical barrier had not been constructed between the copper slag and the river to prevent the slag from reaching the river;
The unit had applied for authorization to generate and dispose of hazardous waste but did not have an extant licence;
There was a failure to measure emissions in terms of the National Air Quality Ambient Standards; and
The requirement of a gypsum pond (mandated by guidelines issued by CPCB) had not been observed.

From a reading of the judgment of the High Court, it has emerged that the petitioner had expressly consented to the High Court enquiring into all facets of the matter so as to determine fully and finally as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to a renewal of the permissions which were granted to it. Otherwise, even if the orders impugned were to be set aside, both the Board and the Government would have been justified in requesting the High Court to remand the proceedings back to the competent statutory authorities for re-determination afresh. This course of action was obviated on the petitioner submitting to the High Court that it was ready and willing to have the High Court evaluate the entirety of the matter in its full perspective.

The petitioner having agreed to this course of action, we are not inclined to entertain the submission that the High Court has committed an error of jurisdiction. The hearing before the High Court spanned forty-two days and the High Court has rendered a judgment on all factual and legal aspects, after considering as many as thirty-eight issues.

3. Interference under Article 136 is not warranted

The judgment of this Court in Sterlite Industries (supra) afforded the petitioner sufficient opportunity to take remedial action. The consequence of the adjudication by this Court was not to obliterate the environmental violations which had preceded it. This Court came to the conclusion that there indeed were environmental violations, which were additionally compounded by a suppression of material facts.

An alternative perspective on facts has been sought to be established. We are not inclined in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to re-appreciate the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the High Court. The High Court, it must be noted, was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to judicially review the findings of statutory authorities and bodies entrusted with requisite powers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. Apart from the exercise of jurisdiction by the statutory authorities, the proceedings before this Court had been preceded by an evaluation by the High Court which is not shown to suffer from error that would warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. No special circumstances exist which justify the exercise of discretion by this Court nor is the conscience of the Court shocked by the judgment of the High Court.

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 analysis 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.

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.”

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.

TNPCB is aggrieved by the observations contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18 August 2020 about its failure to exercise its regulatory functions in a timely and conscientious manner and has preferred appeals in this regard. We are of the view that the High Court was justified in making the observations in regard to the lack of alacrity on the part of the Pollution Control Board in discharging its duties. The observations of the High Court do not call to be either expunged or obliterated from the record. The Civil Appeals were therefore dismissed.