TWO CASES SUMMARY

ON

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986

KARAN VYAS
BA0150021

1. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD vs STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I)

LTD. & ORS. (2013)
Civil Appeal Nos .4763-4764 Of 2013

Industrial Environmental Pollution

Indian Supreme Court recently took a very important environment related decision in Sterlite
Industries case, relating to running of industries which lead to environmental degradation.
Sterlite Industries is a public listed company which operates a copper smelting plant since 1996
at SIPCOT Industrial complex, Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. This case came up in the Supreme
Court because of the contradicting claims by Sterlite Industries and the National Green Tribunal
decision. Sterlite Industries had been following all prescribed conditions for running such an
industry but due to the complaints by the public of that area enquiry was conducted and after an
initial okay action was taken against it due to the huge adverse impact, of manufacturing process
undertaken for production, on the environment. Consequently Supreme Court has imposed a
penalty of Rs. 100 Crore but has allowed continued operations, with regular checks. Findings of
the Court needs to be looked into to see why exactly the Bench came to such a conclusion and
how. Also keeping in mind the past
environmental jurisprudence which has come under the limelight due to the recentmining case co
ntroversy the somewhat lenient stand needs to be understood in its all entirety. First, the Co urt
had to decide whether the High Court had the authority to interfere in the environment clearance
processes provided by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. High Court reference to
decisions of Supreme Court on Sustainable Development, Precautionary and Polluter Pays
Principles and Public Trust Doctrine was seen to be futile as it failed to see decision like the

1
three judge bench in Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. where tests to be
based on anvil of well recognized principles of judicial review. It was said if the environmental
clearance granted by the competent authority is clearly outside the powers given to it by the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 or the
notifications issued there under, the High Court could quash the environmental clearance on the
ground of illegality. If the environmental clearance is based on a conclusion so unreasonable that
no reasonable authority could ever have come to the decision, the environmental clearance would
suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness and the High Court could interfere on the ground of
irrationality. And, if the environmental clearance is granted in breach of proper procedure, the
High Court could review the decision of the authority on the ground of procedural impropriety.
Decision of the Central Government to grant the environmental clearance can see to be
reasonable as same was provided after detailed examination of rapid EIA/EMP, NOC, and
proper qualifications was ensured for operation. It was noted that authorities under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Rules, notification are to determine scope of project,
extent of screening and assessment of cumulative effects. Also, as long as the prescribed
statutory process for clearance is followed and EIA isn't found to be irrational to frustrate its very
purpose the Court is not to interfere with the decision of the prescribed authorities under the veil
of judicial review. The examination of the implications of Supreme Court’s innovations for
environmental jurisprudence reveals that the application of innovative methods to resolve
environmental disputes and implement Court orders is certainly a deviation from the usual
adjudication function of the Court. While the procedural innovations have widened the scope for
environmental justice through recognition of citizens’ right to healthy environment, entertaining
petitions on behalf of affected people and inanimate objects and creative thinking of judges to
arrive at a decision by making spot visit, substantive innovations have redefined the role of Court
in the decision-making process through application of environmental principles and expanding
the scope of environmental jurisprudence.

2
 2. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & ORS. vs SEASHELLS BEACH
RESORT & ORS.(2012)
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5967-5968 of 2012)-Decided on 11-
05- 2012.

Beach Resort - Violation of the CRZ and other irregularities

A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice T S Thakur and Justice V Gopala Gowda has
directed that the exercise which the Government of India has initiated to fill up the missing gaps
in the process of completion of Integrated Islands Management Plans (IIMPs) for the
Lakshadweep Islands should be completed expeditiously but not later than October 30, 2015.
The direction has been passed in a Civil Appeal titled Union of Lakshadweep and Others Versus
Seashells Beach Resort and Others which pertains to allegations regarding violation of the
Coastal Regulation Zone and other irregularities in relation to establishment and or running
resorts and home-stays in the Lakshadweep Islands.
In this Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court had earlier constituted an expert committee headed by
Justice R V Raveendran, former Judge of the Apex Court, to examine and submit a
comprehensive report on many vital aspects including evaluation of draft Integrated Islands
Management Plans.While accepting the report of the committee the Apex Court had directed the
Government of India and Union Territory of the Lakshadweep to place on record outlines of the
various follow-up action that the Government propose to take and the timelines for such action.
Keeping in view nature of controversy, the Apex Court appointed Gaurav Pachnanda as Amicus
Curiae. Later, Lakshadweep Administration undertook to forward the Integrated Island
Management Plans prepared by the Centre for Earth Sciences Studies after incorporating the
recommendations of the Expert Committee for consideration and approval of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. It was also submitted by the Lakshadweep Administration that once
the IIMPs are notified by the Government of India, Administration will demarcate the High Tide
Lines and No Development Zones and Regulated Development Zones.
However, Amicus Curiae submitted that the affidavit filed by the Lakshadweep Administration
didn’t address certain other issues and recommendations made by the Expert Committee such as

3
framing of development control regulations and building bye-laws without which construction
activities at the islands would be haphazard and create a slum-like situation.
Now, the Supreme Court has directed that the exercise which Government of India has initiated
to fill up the missing gaps in the process of completion of IIMPs should be completed
expeditiously but not later than October 30, 2015 in regard not only to Agatti but all other Islands
also.
The Apex Court has also made it clear that Government of India must ensure that National
Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management at Chenani, which has been approached by the
Government of India, must complete its task within the fixed time-frame.