Polluter pays and precautionary principles were enforced to curb industrial pollution, compensate victims, and restore damaged ecology.

Sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle were accepted as part of Indian environmental law, with development required to yield to ecology and public health. The Court treated the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules as empowering the Central Government and pollution control authorities to act against industrial pollution, issue directions, enforce standards and regulate highly polluting industries. Applying these principles to tanneries and other polluting units, it directed compensation to affected persons, recovery of restoration costs, pollution fines, and closure of non-compliant industries, while permitting suspension of closure orders only to facilitate compliance and installation of treatment facilities.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle form part of Indian environmental law; (ii) whether the Central Government and the pollution control authorities were required to act under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules to control industrial pollution and regulate highly polluting industries; (iii) whether the tanneries and other polluting industries in the affected districts could be directed to close, pay pollution fine, compensate affected persons, and bear the cost of restoring the damaged environment.

Issue (i): whether sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle form part of Indian environmental law.

Analysis: The Court held that development cannot be permitted to destroy ecology or impair public health. It treated sustainable development as a balancing concept between development and environmental protection and held it to be part of customary international law. The Court further accepted the precautionary principle, requiring preventive environmental measures and placing the burden on the industrial actor to show that its activity is environmentally benign. It also accepted the polluter pays principle as a legal rule requiring the polluter not only to compensate victims but also to bear the cost of restoring damaged ecology.

Conclusion: Sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle were held to be part of the law of the land.

Issue (ii): whether the Central Government and the pollution control authorities were required to act under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules to control industrial pollution and regulate highly polluting industries.

Analysis: The Court examined the constitutional duty to protect life, public health, and the environment together with the statutory scheme under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. It held that the Act empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect the environment, issue directions, and constitute an authority for effective implementation. It also held that the Rules empower the Board to prescribe and enforce stringent emission and discharge standards. The Court further directed enforcement of the State's prohibition on highly polluting industries near water sources.

Conclusion: The statutory scheme was held sufficient to require immediate governmental and regulatory action, and the Central Government was directed to constitute an authority under the Act.

Issue (iii): whether the tanneries and other polluting industries in the affected districts could be directed to close, pay pollution fine, compensate affected persons, and bear the cost of restoring the damaged environment.

Analysis: The Court relied on the continued and serious pollution caused by untreated effluents, the failure of many tanneries to install effective treatment facilities, and the expert reports showing contamination of wells, rivers, soil, and drinking water. Applying the polluter pays principle, the Court held that the industries were liable for past pollution as well as for restoring ecological damage. It directed payment of compensation to affected persons, recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue, imposition of pollution fine, closure for non-compliance, and suspension of closure orders only to enable compliance with the prescribed standards and installation of treatment facilities.

Conclusion: The tanneries and other polluting industries were held liable to pay pollution fine and compensation, and stringent closure and compliance directions were issued against non-complying units.

Final Conclusion: The decision established enforceable environmental principles in Indian law and issued comprehensive regulatory and remedial directions to halt pollution, restore damaged ecology, and secure compensation for affected persons.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental protection is an essential facet of the right to life, and industries causing pollution are absolutely liable to prevent harm, compensate victims, and bear the cost of restoring the environment.

---