Environmental compliance for polluting industries: tanneries needed primary treatment plants before continuing operations to protect river Ganga.

Industries discharging untreated or inadequately treated effluents into the river Ganga were required to adopt minimum pollution-control measures before continuing operations. The Court relied on constitutional environmental duties and the Water and Environment protection statutes to address serious river pollution, public health risk, and harm to aquatic life. Financial inability was not treated as a justification for polluting activity. Tanneries with approved primary treatment plants could continue only if those plants were properly maintained, while others were given time to install them or cease business.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tanneries discharging untreated or inadequately treated effluents into the river Ganga could be permitted to continue operations without establishing primary treatment plants, and whether the Court could issue directions to prevent river pollution in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers.

Analysis: The petition was treated as representative litigation concerning grave environmental degradation of the river Ganga. The constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment and the corresponding fundamental duty of citizens were relied upon, together with the statutory scheme under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The record showed that the tanneries were discharging effluents causing substantial pollution and damage to public health and aquatic life. The statutory authorities had not taken effective preventive action. The Court held that industries causing such pollution could not claim an unfettered right to continue unless they installed at least primary treatment plants to pre-treat effluents before discharge. Financial inability was held to be no answer where the activity itself endangered the public and the environment.

Conclusion: The tanneries were directed to stop operations unless they installed approved primary treatment plants and complied with the prescribed pre-treatment requirements. Tanneries already equipped with such plants were permitted to continue subject to maintaining them in proper working order. Time was granted to the remaining tanneries to install the plants, failing which they were required to cease business.

Final Conclusion: The decision enforced immediate environmental compliance against polluting industries and confirmed the Court's power to issue protective directions where statutory authorities had not adequately prevented serious environmental harm.

Ratio Decidendi: Where industrial discharge causes serious pollution of a public river and statutory authorities fail to act effectively, the Court may direct closure or suspension of the offending industry unless it first adopts the minimum pollution-control measures necessary to protect the environment and public health.

---