Summary
The Court declined to interfere with the closure of Vedanta’s Thoothukudi copper smelter, where repeated and serious environmental violations remained unremedied. The High Court had not exceeded its writ jurisdiction after Vedanta agreed to a full inquiry into renewal of permissions; no exceptional ground warranted reappraisal under Article 136.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded its Article 226 jurisdiction by considering environmental violations beyond the stated grounds for the closure orders.
- Whether the findings of repeated environmental violations and the closure direction warranted interference under Article 136.
- Whether the High Court’s observations about the Pollution Control Board’s delay in performing its duties should be expunged.
Provisions considered
- Articles 136 and 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court could examine all relevant environmental and permission issues because Vedanta agreed to that course while seeking renewal of permissions. Article 136 interference with the High Court’s fact-based judicial review was unwarranted absent exceptional circumstances or a material error. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 29, 30)
- Environmental consent and pollution-control requirements, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974The statutory authorities and High Court addressed pollution, disposal of copper slag and gypsum, hazardous waste authorisation, and compliance with consent conditions under the environmental regulatory framework. (¶¶ 11, 13, 19, 23)
- Environmental standards and emission requirements, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981The record included failures to measure emissions in accordance with applicable air-quality standards and broader violations of environmental norms; the Court declined to disturb the closure decision. (¶¶ 11, 13, 23)
Held
- The High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction by examining environmental violations beyond the specific grounds stated in the closure orders. Vedanta had sought renewal of permissions and expressly agreed that the High Court could examine the matter in full, including whether renewal was justified. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The record disclosed repeated and serious environmental violations, including indiscriminate copper-slag dumping, non-compliance with gypsum-disposal conditions, lack of hazardous-waste authorisation, and failure to continue remediation despite earlier findings and directions. The 2013 judgment had not absolved the unit of liability or prevented the Pollution Control Board from ordering closure in future. (¶¶ 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The Court would not reappraise the High Court’s findings under Article 136 absent exceptional circumstances or an error warranting interference. The severity and repeated nature of the violations justified closure, consistently with sustainable development, the polluter-pays principle and the public-trust doctrine. (¶¶ 18, 23, 24, 25)
- The High Court was justified in observing that the Pollution Control Board had not acted with sufficient promptness and diligence; those observations did not warrant expunging. (¶¶ 32, 33)
Result
The Special Leave Petitions challenging the closure and the Pollution Control Board’s Civil Appeals were dismissed. The closure orders and the High Court’s observations about regulatory delay remained undisturbed.