The precedent of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India, is a landmark environmental judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India. A petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution highlighting the pollution caused by various untreated sewage of tanneries in Tamil Nadu, which flows into the Palar River, a source of water for agricultural lands.

This led to water scarcity and rendered the subsoil water of the river unfit for use. Research also said that over 35,000 hectares of agricultural land were found unsuitable for cultivation due to chemical and dye contamination, affecting soil quality and groundwater. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating the application of Precautionary Principle[1] and Polluter Pays Principle[2] , thereby strengthening environmental jurisprudence in India.

Key Issues

There were 4 key issues that were identified. They were:

• Whether the Tanneries and other industries in Tamil Nadu violated environmental laws by polluting water bodies?
• Whether industries can be directed to pay compensation for environmental damage (application of Polluter Pays Principle)?
• The role of Sustainable Development in balancing industrial growth and environmental protection.
• The extent of the court's power in directing industries to adopt pollution control measures.

Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court invoked Article 21 (Right to Life), stating that environmental pollution directly affects the right to a healthy life. Articles 48A & 51A(g) were also cited to ensure that the State fulfills its duty in protecting the Environment.

The Court relied on various international principles such as the Polluter Principle, which states that the industries must bear the responsibilities of pollution and should compensate the cost of remedial measures, and the Precautionary Principle, which states that environmental measures must be anticipated and prevent damages rather than reacting to it. It also invoked the key principle of Sustainable Development[3], which emphasized that economic growth must not come at the cost of environmental degradation.

In fact, many judicial precedents pertaining to environmental law have influenced the court's ruling. Notably, the landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India,[4] which most dealt with industries that produce hazardous substances and also introduced the concept of Absolute Liability, set an important precedent for environmental regulations in India.

The case also highlighted the disastrous impact of industrial waste on water bodies and public health. The court encouraged industries in setting up of Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) and ensure that they follow environmental regulations to control further pollution. It also sought the need for strict regulatory checks through the help of various agencies like Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and statutory compliance under The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 .[5]

While the leather industry is significantly important through an economic lens, the judgement insisted that economic progress cannot be prioritized over environmental sustainability. Even the Polluter Pays Principle has imposed financial liability on industries for environmental restoration. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs Union of India[6], which dealt with the closure of various industries in Bichhri, Rajasthan due to air and water pollution, it held that industries must pay for environmental damage caused. It also emphasized on reversing the imbalance caused to the ecology, which is a crucial part of the industrial process. The industries were also required to invest in cleaner technologies and wastewater treatment facilities, thereby promoting industrial practices.

The petitioners argued that the pollution caused by the Tanneries contaminated the surface and subsurface water of the Palar River, making it difficult for residents to access clean drinking water. This pollution also led to water scarcity, forcing people to travel long distances to fetch clean drinking water. Despite requests from the Governments to setup treatment plants, most tanneries refused to follow these orders, even when subsidies were being given to them. The right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 and demanded that industries must bear the cost of environmental restoration.

The respondents were of the opinion that the waste restrictions that were imposed by the TNPCB were unacceptable. They also argued that the Government had not released a certain set of guidelines for the release of toxic wastes into surface water. They also stated that these tanneries provided various employment opportunities and contributed significantly to the economy. They added that strict environmental measures would impose financial burdens, making them less competitive, and requested more time for compliance.

While the court agreed that these tanneries provided jobs and was vital for economic growth, development and environmental protection should not be overlooked. The tanneries endangered human lives. The Court sealed down their operations unless pollution control technology was installed and they got approved from the concerned authorities.

The Court also recognized the contributions of MC Mehta and awarded him a sum of ₹ 50,000 for his work regarding environmental safety. The ruling showcased India's commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection. Industries were held accountable for environmental harm and merged key environmental principles into the Indian law. It also gave a judicial framework for addressing industrial pollution, making the way for future cases on environmental governance.

While these were the pros, there are a few cons in this judgement. Applying them is still a major obstacle due to corruption and institutional frameworks. Most of these industries do not follow these environmental norms or avoid them using various loopholes. The ratio decedendi did not specifically address the long-term rehabilitation of affected communities, especially those who suffered various health and livelihood problems and losses due to pollution. Stricter follow up measures were needed to ensure that industries followed environmental norms.

The case has largely influenced many environmental policies such as the expansion of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements and a strong judicial framework over pollution control laws. It also highlights the need for industries to adopt cleaner production techniques and invest in sustainable waste management. Apart from the judicial rulings, the case also showcased the necessity for various government agencies like Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to play an active role in monitoring these industrial activities. The ruling has also played a crucial role in shaping the concept of Green Bench or National Green Tribunal, which has been taking a crucial role in taking cases related to environmental law and adjudicating the same.

Environmental protection laws vary across different jurisdictions, with some countries having strict environmental policies. In USA, environmental protection is largely regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[7] under the Clean Water Act. The EPA imposes strict liability on industries polluting water bodies, ensuring that polluters are held accountable and required to restore environmental damage. In India, the enforcement mechanism is much weaker, even though Polluter Pays Principle is recognized.

In EU, it enforces strict environmental norms under its Green Deal Framework[8]. The EU operates an Emissions Trading System (ETS), ensuring that industries reduce pollution through market-based mechanisms. India does not have a strict system for controlling industrial pollution. In Bangladesh, environmental governance is a major challenge as there is less strict pollution control measures and weak mechanisms. While India has made some progress in implementing international environmental principles, Bangladesh continues to struggle with balancing economic growth and environmental sustainability. While India has been playing an active role in setting landmark environmental precedents, it still requires strong regulatory enforcement to match global standards.

The precedent remains highly relevant in todays time as India continues to fight industrial pollution, which poses a major threat to India's environment. It has shaped India's environment jurisprudence and serves as a reference point for future legal cases related to industrial pollution and environmental rights. This case largely inspired judicial intervention in environmental matters, ensuring that industries are held accountable for ecological damage.

It also influenced later cases such as MC Mehta vs Union of India (2004)[9], which reinforced pollution control measures. Furthermore, the judgement continues to be cited in several ongoing environmental disputes involving industries, making it an essential part of India's evolving environmental framework. As India faces newer environmental challenges, like climate change and deforestation, this case has been a major landmark in balancing economic growth with sustainable development.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling significantly strengthened environmental law in India. The judgement ensured that industries bear the responsibility for environmental damage through the various principles of environmental law, be it the Polluter Pays Principle or the Precautionary Principle . However, implementing them has been a major challenge due to regulatory gaps and less interference. As we proceed towards the future, it is critical to implement strong monitoring systems to ensure compliance with environmental laws.

The establishment of independent NGOs that solve environmental problems can play a crucial role in controlling industrial pollution with the help of enforcement powers. Also, adoption of advanced green technologies and encouraging public private partnerships will help industries make a change towards adopting sustainable practices without compromising economic growth. This case highlights the need of judicial activism in environmental matters. The role of courts in ensuring that government agencies act sincerely in protecting the environment remains essential in the long run. Legislative bodies must also learn from this landmark precedent and should work towards creating more strict environmental laws that ensures that there is no place for doubt or elusion.

International cooperation in addressing pollution issues across different jurisdictions is another crucial aspect. With the increase of Globalization, industries are now working across various countries, showcasing collaborative efforts among various countries to tackle pollution effectively. Strengthening of environmental treaties and ensuring that their implementation can further showcase its commitment to follow the objectives that have been set by this landmark precedent.

A strong legal framework with well-defined penalties for violations should be implemented to ensure no malpractice happens. Periodic assessments and third-party audits of industries can play a major role in tracking pollution levels and ensuring that industries follow to the prescribed standards. Greater public awareness and engagement in environmental governance can encourage communities to be proactive about their surroundings and demand strict measures.

Additionally, judicial activism has played a major role in shaping India's environmental policies. Courts must remain vigilant and ensure that environmental laws are not only well drafted, but also are implemented effectively. Legislative reforms should focus on creating an integrated approach to pollution control by implementing stricter penalties, compliance reporting, and various incentives for green technologies .To overall conclude, while the ruling in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Case was a major milestone in Indian environmental jurisprudence, its success ultimately depends on continuous efforts to break the barrier between policy and practice.

The future of environmental protection in India lies in implementation, technological advancements, and collective accountability from all the concerned stakeholders, i.e., Industries, Civil Society and Government. As environmental challenges evolve, India should prioritize sustainability to protect its natural resources and public health for future generations. The Supreme Court raised the point of Sustainable Development which stated that while industrial growth is important for economic purposes, it should not violate people's wellbeing and their health.

End Notes:

1. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. [Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, U.N.]
2. The 'polluter pays' principle is the commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. (1992 Rio Declaration).
3. (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (1992).)
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395
5. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No. 6 of 1974, India Code (1974)
6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – www.epa.gov
8. European Green Deal – ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
9. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 588