Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri case)

Facts

Production of 'H' acid and discharges from a sulphuric acid plant of the respondent companies caused severe environmental pollution in Bichhri village and adjacent villages in Rajasthan, contaminating soil and water sources and invading the villagers' right to life. A writ petition under Article 32 was filed as social-action litigation on behalf of the affected villagers, directed against the Central and State Governments and the Pollution Control Board to compel performance of their statutory duties.

Issues

• Whether the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable and the Supreme Court could intervene to protect the villagers' right to life.
• Whether the polluting enterprises were absolutely liable and bound to bear the cost of remedial measures under the Polluter Pays principle.

Arguments

The petitioner sought enforcement of statutory duties and recovery of remediation costs from the polluting 'rogue industries'. The respondent industries resisted liability and closure of their operations.

Held

The Court held the writ petition maintainable, affirming its power and duty to protect citizens' right to life. Following M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, it imposed absolute liability on the enterprises carrying on the hazardous and inherently dangerous activity. It held the Central Government could be directed to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures, including removal of sludge, from the companies, attaching their plant, machinery and immovable assets, with the recovered amount to be used by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to restore the affected area. Characterising the respondents as 'rogue industries' for their persistent and insolent violations of law, the Court ordered them closed down and to pay Rs. 50,000 costs, basing liability on the Polluter Pays principle in addition to the absolute-liability principle of the Oleum Gas Leak case.

Ratio decidendi

An enterprise engaged in hazardous activity that pollutes the environment is absolutely liable for the harm caused and, under the Polluter Pays principle, is bound to bear the entire cost of reversing the damage and restoring the environment.

Significance

A leading environmental judgment that applied and extended the M.C. Mehta absolute-liability rule to industrial pollution and authoritatively entrenched the Polluter Pays principle in Indian law, empowering recovery of remediation costs from and closure of offending enterprises.

Related