Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board - NGT Case

Appeal Nos. 57 and 58 of 2013

Citation
Appeal Nos. 57 and 58 of 2013
Court
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench
Date
8 Aug 2013
Bench
Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson); D.K. Agrawal, G.K. Pandey & R.C. Trivedi (Expert Members)

Facts

  • Sterlite Industries operated a copper-smelting plant at Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu.
  • On 23 March 2013, residents in parts of Thoothukudi complained of:
  • eye irritation;
  • throat irritation;
  • coughing;
  • breathing difficulty.
  • Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board suspected sulphur dioxide emissions from Sterlite.
  • It issued a show-cause notice and, on 29 March 2013, directed:
  • immediate closure of the plant;
  • disconnection of electricity.
  • Sterlite challenged the orders before the National Green Tribunal.
  • It argued that:
  • the high instrument readings occurred during calibration;
  • actual stack emissions were within limits;
  • the complaints had not been scientifically linked to its plant.
  • Expert committees inspected the facility and examined monitoring equipment and emission data.

Issue

  • Whether the closure direction under Section 31A of the Air Act was supported by reliable scientific evidence.
  • Whether the health complaints were sufficiently connected with Sterlite’s emissions.
  • Whether the plant should remain closed as a precaution despite uncertainty.
  • What continuing monitoring and health safeguards were required.

Rule

  • Section 31A of the Air Act permits closure and disconnection directions to prevent or control air pollution.
  • Closure is a serious statutory power and must be based upon:
  • relevant material;
  • objective scientific evidence;
  • proper application of mind;
  • fair procedure.
  • The precautionary principle permits preventive action but does not remove the need for rational evidence linking the alleged source and environmental risk.
  • Industrial operation remains subject to continuous monitoring and strict compliance even where a particular closure order is set aside.

Application

  • The Tribunal examined the readings relied upon by the Pollution Control Board.
  • Sterlite explained that exceptionally high values appeared when sulphur dioxide analysers were being calibrated with known-concentration gas.
  • Such readings did not necessarily represent gas released through the stack.
  • The expert committee inspected:
  • online analysers;
  • calibration systems;
  • stack emissions;
  • ambient-air stations;
  • gas-routing arrangements.
  • During monitored operation, the experts found stack emissions within prescribed limits.
  • The Tribunal also examined:
  • wind direction;
  • distance between the plant and complainant areas;
  • timing of the reported symptoms;
  • available hospital information;
  • other industrial sources in the SIPCOT area.
  • It found that the Board had not produced sufficiently reliable material to conclusively attribute the 23 March incident to Sterlite.
  • However, the Tribunal did not treat this evidentiary failure as proof that the region had no pollution or public-health problem.
  • Thoothukudi contained an industrial cluster with possible cumulative impacts.
  • The Tribunal therefore required continuing preventive measures, including:
  • improved continuous monitoring;
  • independent sampling;
  • source-apportionment study;
  • stricter regulatory supervision;
  • public-health investigation.
  • A special committee was constituted to study illnesses and possible environmental causes in surrounding communities.
  • Thus, the Tribunal distinguished between:
  • invalidating an inadequately supported closure order; and
  • abandoning environmental supervision.

Conclusion

  • The NGT partly allowed Sterlite’s appeals and permitted the plant to operate subject to extensive conditions.
  • The closure order could not be sustained on the scientific material then available.
  • The Pollution Control Board and expert committees were directed to:
  • continuously monitor emissions;
  • investigate health effects;
  • conduct source-apportionment analysis;
  • take future action if violations were established.
  • The judgment did not grant permanent immunity to Sterlite.
  • It preserved the Board’s power to issue fresh lawful directions based on reliable evidence.
  • Later development: in 2019, the Supreme Court held that the direct NGT appellate route used in these proceedings was procedurally unavailable because the statutory appellate mechanism under the Air Act had to be followed. The NGT orders were therefore set aside on jurisdictional grounds, without declaring that environmental violations could not be examined through the proper forum.
  • Use this case for: the requirement of reliable scientific evidence before exercising the drastic power of industrial closure.