Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India

This article was written by Rohini Tondare, a student of Maharashtra National Law University.

APPELLANT: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum

RESPONDANT: Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Department of Environment and Others

BENCH: Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice Faizan Uddin, Justice K. Venkataswami

DATE: 07/04/2016

FACT:

In the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India Case, the petitioner filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The Petition was documented against the water contamination caused because of inordinate arrival of toxins by the tanneries and different ventures in the State of Tamil Nadu into the waterway Palar. Palar River was the primary wellspring of water for the vocation of the encompassing individuals. Afterward, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Center, Vellore found that around 35,000 hectares of agrarian land has turned either completely or somewhat fruitless and not good for development. This is one of the milestone cases whereby the Supreme Court fundamentally analyse the connection among climate and mechanical turn of events.

ISSUE RAISED:

Considering health of individual and the environment, whether the tanneries should be permitted to continue working?

PETITIONER:

Petitioner argued that, the due to release of pollutants in the river by the tanneries and by other industries, whole surface and soil of the river Palar has been intoxicated due to which it is not accessible for consumption to the people. It also has been seen that serious damaged is caused to environment by the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu. A study conducted by a non-administrative association, stated that covering 13 towns of Dindigul and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Unions, 350 out of 467 wells which are used for drinking and water system have been contaminated.

RESPONDANT:

The advocates from the side of the tanneries argued that the quality concerning Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) fixed by the board wasn’t legitimized. This Court by the solicitation dated April 9,1996, composed the NEERI to look at this point and offer its information. In its report, NEERI has legitimized the models specified by the boards. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has not totally put down models for inland surface water discharge for Total Dissolved Solids, Sulphates and Chlorides. The determination on these rules’ rests with the individual State Pollution Control Boards in Line with the requirements upheld close by site conditions.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court ruled making all efforts to maintain a harmony between environment and development after hearing both the parties and examine the report. The court observed that these tanneries are the major foreign exchange earner to the country and also provide employment to some people. But at the same time, it harms the environment and poses a health hazard to everyone. The court ruled in favour of petitioners and directed all the Tanneries to deposit a sum of rupees ten thousand in the office of Collector as a fine. The court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr. M.C. Mehta with a sum of Rupees Fifty thousand as a token of appreciation towards his efforts in protecting the environment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also state to emphasis on the formation of green benches in dealing with matters related to the protection of the environment.

Article 32: Article 32 falls under the part III of the Indian Constitution which includes the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Citizens. It allows all the Indian citizens to move to the country’s Apex Court in case of the violation of Fundamental Rights.

In the given case, the strong analyse has been done between economical condition and the environment. And maintaining this, tanneries had not shut down butt fine was imposed. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others (1996) 5 SCC 281 case (Bicchri Case), case was filed by an NGO on behalf of the Bicchri village against the chemical industrial plants producing toxic effluents. Government had not taken necessary action to protect rights of citizens to a healthy environment under Article 21, and thus, it falls upon the Supreme Court to intervene under Article 32. Imposed strict and absolute liability on the industrial plants and issued other directions. Also, in Rural litigation and Environment Kendra, Dehradun and others v. State of U.P and others (1985) 2 SCC 431 case, the PIL involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance with implications to the welfare of generality of people living in the country. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 covers the right to a clean environment and that the permanent assets of mankind cannot be allowed to be exhausted.  But in G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 102 case, the PIL was filed against the setting up of power plant at Kudankulam. The court justified the setting up of the plant, by emphasizing on striking a balance between the ecology and environment on one hand and the project of the public utility on the other. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1988) 1 SCC 471 (Ganga Water Pollution Case), despite of sufficient provision under the water act, the Kanpur Mahanagarpalika did not take necessary steps to prevent pollution. SC issued directions to it for the same. Held rights of people residing near Ganga must be protected against pollution. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors, the petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro form the discharge of slurry from the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. The state pollution control board failed to take actions against the company and permitted the pollution of the water and the State of Bihar instead of taking actions. The bench found that the respective care was taken by the State of Bihar and the PIL filed by the petitioner was for his interest not for public interest.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is designed for the safeguard of the fundamental right of citizens and the right to live is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and guarantees a citizen to live in pollution free water and air. But it also important to maintain stability between environment and economics.