The Right to a Clean Environment

The Supreme Court's judgment on pollution in Palar River is significant as it emphasizes the responsibilities of both industry and government.

- Geetha Ravichandran

In the court's opinion, while the 'polluter pays' principle is valid, the government is equally responsible to regulate and contain environmental damage. It's a matter of concern that this pertains to a public interest litigation moved more than 30 years ago and the problem of pollution caused by untreated effluents discharged by tanneries still persists.

Pollution of water bodies is happening right under the nose of pollution control boards, despite environmental protection laws and activists raising alarm. The argument that industries contribute to GDP, pay compensation when ordered, and are not the only source of effluents is specious. Time and again, the judiciary has emphasized that a healthy environment is integral to human rights and the right to life itself.

The success stories that have contained environmental damage and restored ecosystems point to the efficacy of collaborative efforts among all stakeholders: citizens groups, non-profits, administrations, and industries.

In the textile hub of Tiruppur in Tamil Nadu, joint efforts involving the entire community affected by the pollution of water bodies have resulted in cleaning and restoration. But this is a mammoth task and involves continuous monitoring.