A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case concerns the closure of the copper smelter operated by Vedanta Limited at the SIPCOT industrial complex in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, due to numerous environmental violations. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the principles of sustainable development, polluter pays principle, and public trust doctrine. The Court reiterated the balance between economic interests and environmental welfare. It also highlighted the need for protecting fundamental rights, including clean air, water, and soil, and ensuring intergenerational equity. The Court declined to interfere under Article 136, citing no exceptional circumstances justifying a review.

Keywords: Environmental pollution, copper smelter, sustainable development, polluter pays principle, public trust doctrine.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Vedanta Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

ii) Case Number:
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10159-10168 of 2020

iii) Judgement Date:
29 February 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala; Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI

vii) Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1121; 2024 INSC 175

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 21, Constitution of India
• Article 136, Constitution of India
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly overruled; prior precedents distinguished.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects:
Environmental law, constitutional law, administrative law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arose from a series of environmental violations by Vedanta Limited’s copper smelter unit in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and the State Government ordered its closure following repeated breaches of environmental norms. Initial challenges at the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and subsequent appeals culminated in a High Court decision upholding the closure. Vedanta sought relief under Article 136, challenging the procedural and substantive findings of the High Court.

The judgment explores the interplay of economic development with environmental sustainability, assessing whether the closure aligned with constitutional and statutory mandates. It underscores judicial deference to statutory authorities in cases of environmental regulation unless palpable errors exist.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• The copper smelter began operations in 1997 following environmental clearance in 1995.
• Several reports documented environmental violations, including air, water, and soil pollution.
• The unit operated for extended periods without requisite renewals of operational consent.
• Large-scale dumping of hazardous copper slag contaminated local water bodies and increased flooding risks.
• Repeated non-compliance with regulatory directives, including hazardous waste management and emission standards, was noted.
• A 2013 Supreme Court judgment imposed a Rs. 100 crore penalty for environmental damages but allowed the unit to operate under strict compliance conditions.
• The TNPCB and State Government closed the unit in 2018 following continued breaches.
• Vedanta challenged the closure orders before the NGT and High Court, leading to the present proceedings.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court erred in ordering the closure of the copper smelter based on environmental violations?
2. Whether the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 226 in addressing issues beyond the TNPCB’s findings?
3. Whether the closure violated principles of natural justice and proportionality?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Procedural Lapses:
   The petitioner argued that the High Court expanded the scope of inquiry beyond the TNPCB’s specific findings, violating procedural fairness.

2. Economic Impact:
   Vedanta highlighted the smelter’s significant contribution to employment and regional revenue, arguing that closure was disproportionate.

3. Remediation Efforts:
   The company claimed substantial compliance with prior directions, including removal of copper slag and hazardous waste management improvements.

4. Violation of Article 21:
   It was contended that closure infringed upon the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), linked to the broader concept of Article 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Repeated Violations:
   The respondents emphasized Vedanta’s chronic non-compliance with environmental laws over two decades.

2. Public Health Concerns:
   The TNPCB and Tamil Nadu Government pointed to evidence of severe environmental damage impacting public health and local livelihoods.

3. Judicial Precedents:
   Citing Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), they argued for strict adherence to environmental standards under Article 21.

4. Polluter Pays Principle:
   They advocated imposing environmental liability on Vedanta under established doctrines, including polluter pays and public trust principles.

H) JUDGMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that the closure was justified, balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns. It emphasized the principles of sustainable development, polluter pays, and intergenerational equity.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that regulatory authorities must act with greater alacrity in preventing environmental violations.

c) GUIDELINES

1. The polluter pays principle mandates industrial compliance with environmental standards.
2. Courts must prioritize public health and ecological balance over economic considerations.
3. Regulatory authorities must enhance proactive enforcement of environmental norms.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to environmental protection while acknowledging the socio-economic dimensions of industrial activity. It underscores that sustainable development requires stringent adherence to environmental laws, even at the cost of economic growth.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (2019)
2. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India (2013)
3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
4. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, Articles 21, 136.
2. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
3. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.