top of page
Search

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. (case study)

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum

                                                                                                             (Petitioner)

 

Vs.

 

Union of India & Ors.

                                                                                                         (Respondent)

 

 

Court of disposal: Supreme Court of India.

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

Date of Judgment: 28.08.1996.

Citation: [AIR 1996 SC 2715] : [(1996)5 SCC 647].

 

Facts of the case:

 

A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum and was directed against the pollution caused by enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries which is finally discharged in river Palar which is considered as the main source of water supply to the residents in Tamil Nadu. Thus untreated sewage is dumped into agricultural lands, road-sides, water ways and open lands which has caused environmental degradation in the State.

 

Issue in question:

 

Whether the continued operation of tanneries justifies the environmental and health risks posed to the population?

 

 

Judgment:

 

❖ The Environmental Protection Act, 1986's Section 3(3) mandated the establishment of an authority, and the court established the following rules to govern the authority's operations:

 

  1. The requisite authority was granted to address the problems pertaining to tanneries and other enterprises that cause pollution in the state of Tamil Nadu.

  2. Under Section 5 of the Environment Act, the authority is able to issue directives. It ought to implement both the polluter pays and precautionary principles.

 

❖ Compensation should be split into two categories: individual payments and ecosystem reversal. The full amount of compensation to be awarded, the names of the polluters and affected families, and the total amount of money that needs to be paid with the district magistrate/collector of the affected region—who will reimburse the impacted—should all be listed in a statement that is created.

 

❖ All tanneries in North Arcot Ambedkar, Dindigul Anna, Erode Periyar, Chennai M.G.R., and Trichi were ordered by the court to pay a pollution fee of Rs. 10,000 per, which they were to pay by October 31, 1996. The money must be given to the district magistrate or collector, who will then deposit it into the environment protection fund. This fund will be used to compensate the impacted parties and repair the environmental harm.

 

❖ The court has directed the Madras High Court to form a special bench known as the "Green Bench" to handle this issue and other environmental matters.

 

❖ The court ordered the state of Tamil Nadu to pay MC Mehta Rs. 50,000 in legal fees and other expenditures and praised him for his active engagement.

 

 

Conclusion

That was one of the big decisions that came to be built on the pillars of environmental protection. In this case, the concept of sustainable development was adopted by the Supreme Court in passing judgment. It kept manifesting itself that industrial growth is quite necessary for the economic development of the country but it shouldn't necessarily be undertaken at the cost or peril of human health and existence.

 

 

Author  Nandini Achhra

3rd Year BALLB (H) student of

Vivekananda institute of professional studies

Kommentare


  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin

mail us on

legitimatescrutiny@gmail.com

calling hours

06:00 PM - 09:00 PM

graphical presentation
Globe

Global Site Visit Analysis

Daily Visitors 10,832+ 

Monthly Visitors 42,10,076+

Subscribe Form

Stay up to date

©2020 by Legitimate scrutiny.

bottom of page