LexVELLORE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR. R. RAJEBDRAN versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VELLORE DISTRICT & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.