Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action and others (Petitioners) v. Union of India and others (Respondents)

The petitioner, the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action brought this action to prohibit and remedy the pollution caused by several chemical industrial plants in Bichhri village, Udaipur District, Rajasthan. The Respondents operated heavy industry plants there, producing chemicals such as oleum (a concentrate form of sulphuric acid), single super phosphate and the highly toxic "H" acid (the manufacture of which is banned in western countries). Respondents operated these plants without permits which caused serious pollution of the environment. Toxic waste water was untreated and left to be absorbed into the earth causing aquafiers and the subterranean supply of water to be polluted. The soil also became polluted and unfit for cultivation. Several people in nearby villages were alleged to have contracted diseases due to the pollution, some of whom had died. From 1989- 1992, the Court issued orders to respondents, directing them to, among other things, control and store the sludge. These orders were largely ignored. In 1994, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) reported on the pollution caused by respondents, and in 1996, the court held a final hearing on these matters. The court noted the finding in the Oleum Gas Leak Case II under which an enterprise that is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, which results in harm to anyone, is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident. Such liability was not subject to the exceptions of strict liability set forth in Rylands v. Fletcher. This rule was suited to conditions of India. The Court also endorsed the polluter pays principle, under which the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage lie with those who cause the pollution. The court emphasized that the respondents generated this waste without the requisite clearances/consents/license, did not install appropriate treatment equipment, did not carry out the Court’s orders, and had persisted in an illegal course of activity. The damage they had caused by discharging highly toxic untreated waters into the environment was indescribable. It had adversely affected nearby villagers, the soil and water, and the environment in general. Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 empowered the Central Government to take necessary measures to protect the environment. Accordingly, the Central Government would determine the amount of money needed to carry out remedial measures in this case. Respondents were liable to pay to improve and restore the environment in this area. Respondents were "rogue industries", and hence all their plants and factories in Bichhri village were ordered to be closed. Villagers could institute suits in the appropriate civil courts to claim damages from respondents. The court held that the Central Government should consider treating chemical industries separately from other industries, and closely monitoring them to ensure they did not pollute the environment. Establishing environmental courts was a good suggestion and would ensure that environmental matters were given the constant and proper consideration they deserved.