Today (29 Feb), the Supreme Court rejected a plea from the Vedanta group challenging the closure of its copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed Today (29 Feb) the special leave petition filed by Vedanta Limited against an August 2020 Madras High Court ruling dismissing a batch of pleas by the company against the closure of its copper plant in Tuticorin and other consequential orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).
“Closure of industry undoubtedly not a matter of first choice. However, the repeated nature of breaches, coupled with the severity of the violations would in this analysis neither the statutory authorities nor the HC to take any other view unless they were to be oblivious of their plain duty,”
-the Court said in its judgment.
The Court noted that the statutory authorities have entered multiple findings of facts over which the High Court has refused to interfere in the exercise of its judicial review power. The Court said that no serious error in the approach of the High Court has been shown by the petitioner to warrant an interference under Article 136.
In its verdict, the court affirmed the principles of sustainable development, the polluters pay principle, and the public trust doctrine. Although the unit has been contributing to the productive assets of the nation and providing employment and the revenue in the area, these well-settled principles of environmental jurisprudence must be remembered, the bench observed. It noted in its order –
“The court has to be mindful of the other well-settled principles, including the principle of sustainable development, polluter pays principle and the public trust doctrine. The health and welfare of the residents of the area of utmost concern and in the ultimate analysis, the state government is responsible for preserving and protecting their concerns…After capable evaluation, we have come to the conclusion that the special leave petition by the industrial unit does not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition stands dismissed.”
The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board challenging the observations made by the HC against it regarding its inaction.
“We are of the view that the HC was justified in making those observation in regard to the lack of alacrity on the part of the TNPCB in discharging its duties,”
-SC said.
During the rejoinder argument of Vedanta today, CJI Chandrachud told Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, the company’s lawyer, that there are multiple violations involved in the matter.
“There are complete violations Mr.Divan. And these are findings of facts by the High Court. Why should we interfere?”
-CJI asked Divan. In the previous hearing, the Court had asked how Vedanta could it have operated the plant despite the expiry of its hazardous waste license.
“… we have come to the conclusion that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the industrial unit shall not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. For the above reasons, the SLP shall stands dismissed,”
-the bench said.
Earlier this month, the apex court mulled over the idea of forming this expert committee, emphasising the need for an objective evaluation that considers both the investment interests of Vedanta and the welfare of the public in the region. Outlining the potential benefits of such a committee, the court urged counsel representing the State of Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and CS Vaidyanathan, to collaborate on a comprehensive modality that best serves public interest.
During the latest sessions, the court reiterated its suggestion. At the outset, the bench categorically affirmed its obligation to protect the health and welfare of the local community in the region which has witnessed sporadic protests since 1999 against Vedanta’s factory over allegations of soil, water, and air contamination, as well as a violent confrontation in May 2018 between the police and protesters that claimed 13 lives.
At the same time, a ‘way forward’, Chief Justice Chandrachud suggested, could be an independent verification on the conditions to be imposed now on the mining company to ensure compliance with environmental norms and additional safeguards. Agreeing with this suggestion, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, on behalf of the plant, said that this committee could constitute representatives from the environment ministry, NEERI, the Central Pollution Control Board, the Indian Institute of Technology, TNPCB, Vedanta, along with three independent experts.
The State of Tamil Nadu, however, questioned the necessity for appointing an expert committee when detailed findings had already been rendered by the Madras High Court in an 800-page-long judgment. On the State’s behalf, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan emphatically argued that the facility had been closed due to extensive pollution in the surrounding area. Despite recommendations from several committees urging the company to take corrective actions, these measures were not implemented, he alleged.
Although initially inclined to direct the constitution of an expert committee, the court ultimately ruled against the Indian multinational mining company, holding that the high court order dismissing its challenge against Tamil Nadu government’s refusal to renew Sterlite copper plant’s consent to operate (CTO) did not merit any interference.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Vedanta.
Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.
CASE TITLE:
Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10159-10168 of 2020
PREVIOUS REPORTS ON THE CASE
SC Reviewed the Plea Against Closure of Sterlite Copper Unit in Tamil Nadu
Vedanta Sterlite Copper | SC: Industry Closure Without Specified Violation Hampers Investment
Vedanta Plant | SC Emphasizes Safeguarding Public Health and Welfare in Vedanta Plant
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
