Case Brief: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Name of the Case	Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Citation	2013 INSC 204
Date of the Judgement	02.02.2013
Petitioner	Sterlite Industries
Defendants	Union of India, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, National Trust for Clean Environment
Bench/ Judges	A.K. Patnaik and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Important Articles/ Sections	Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- section 3, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972- section 35(1)

FACTS OF THE CASE

“Sterlite Industries Limited, now known as Vedanta Limited, established a copper smelting plant in Tuticorin. For the same, they applied for the permissions and obtained a non-objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, granted clarifications subject to certain conditions, such as issuing consent to the proposed plant. The board granted the consent to establish the plant in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex.

This clearance and consent was challenged before the Madras High Court by the National Trust for Clean Environment. While the petiton was pending, the Industry commenced its production. This was challenged in another petition praying for the immediate halt to the operation. The division judge bench decided both the petitions vide common judgment and directed for the closure of the industry along with ordered to provide compensation to the workmen who became unemployed.

Aggrieved, the industry appealed against the common order of the division judge bench.”

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Constitution of India

Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty

Article 136: Special Leave Petitions

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

Section 21: Restricts the setting up or operation of an industrial plant without prior approval

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Section 3: It grants the Central Government significant powers to protect and improve the environment.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Section 25FFF: It provides for the compensation to the workment for closing down the industry

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Section 16: It outlines the fiunction of Central Board for the Prevention and improvement of the water pollution

Section 18: It empowers the Central and state board to issue dorections

Section 25: It provides restrictions on new outlets and discharges

Section 3: Outlines the powers and functions of the Central Pollution Control Board

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Section 35: Deals with the declaration of the national park

LEGAL ISSUES

The legal issues to be determined by the court are as follows:

1. Whether the Division Judge bench of the Madras High Court was justified in permanent closure of the plant?
2. Whether the concept of polluter pays principle, precautionary principle and sustainable development principle will be applicable in this case?
3. Whether there is scope of Judicial Review for the ganting of clearances and the consent for setting up and operation of the plant?
4. Whether the Industry had deliberately hid the facts to seek clearance and consent in question which may lead to major environmental violations and destruction?
5. Wgether there are no remedial measures other than the closure of industry?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the Appellant’s side contended that,

1. They claimed that the industry had, over the course of years had complied with the conditions stipulated uner the clearance.
2. They had made huge investments in the pollution control equipment and technologies.
3. The decision of the division judge bench was arbitrary as they were not given an adequate opportunity to rectify the allegations made against them.
4. The High Court bench erred in allowing their petitions as the clearances and the subsequent consents were taken form the competent authority after due diligence.
5. The plant provide employment to the significant number of the people and shutting down the industry would render mass unemployment.
6. The operations were based on the standard industrial limits and even the discharge were within permissible limits.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the respondent’s side are as follows,

1. They submitted evidence of habitual breach of the environmental norms such as exceeding the emission and discharge limits, improper waste management system of the hazardous items etc..
2. The pollutants from the plant had caused severe injuries to the local residents such as resparitory ailments, skin disease and other health problem.
3. The industries had shown a consistent pattern in non-compliance and violations.
4. The counsel contended that the sterlite had misrepresented the facts for approving the permissions.
5. Less stringent measures had failed to get the plant to comply the laws and procedure,

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

“The bench granted the leave and allowed the appeall.

The bench set aside the impugned High Court Judgment.

The appearance are directed to pay a compensation of rupees 100 crores within 3 months. Chat after considering the magnitude, prosperity and capacity of the plant. 

As per the inspection carried out by NEERI along with CPCB and TN Pollution Control Board, out of 30 directions issued by Tamil nadu pollution control board the induction has comply with 29 directions The remaining on direction is in the final stage.

On examination of a report by in which the division depends of the high court process immediate closure of the industry, the Supreme Court examined that while some emmissions were within the prescrobed limites, some were not in conformation. 

Code found that High Court was justify in finding the violations how ever the outside order for closure his disproportionate. They also observed that initial environmental clearance whose planted by the central government and the bank should not have interfere on the ground of irregular procedure which we will the plant was located within an existing Industrial complex.

The court applied the precautionary principle, Precautionary principle in the context of municipal law means that 

1. The state and the regulatory bodies must anticipate, prevent, and attack the cause of the environmental degradation.
2. Where there are threats of serious damage, the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a tool to postpone the preventive measures against the degradation.
3. The onus or burden of proof is on the actor or company, or industry on whom allegations have been made. 

The bench also made its decision on the basis of polluter pays principle according to which 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 all precautions or not. Their liability shall be absolute. The bench is of the belief that remediation of the damage is a part of sustainable development.

The court maintained that the judiciary should exercise a judicial restraint in cases of policy decisions but can intervene when findamental rights are being violated.”

CONCLUSION

“This judgment by the bench of Supreme Court has played a key role in establishing a balance between ecological harm and the potential loss to the economy and the investor. While acknowledging the justification by the division judge bench of the High Court, the court opted for a more pragmatic and nuanced approach. The court also underscored the limits of judicial review and the potential challenged it could prove.”