Case Law On Textile Dyeing Factories Prosecuted
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Tirupur Textile Pollution Case, 1996–2009)
Facts:
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, had a cluster of textile dyeing units discharging untreated effluents into the Noyyal River.
Farmers complained that untreated effluents were destroying agriculture and contaminating water sources.
Issues:
Whether the dyeing units must adopt Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD).
Whether polluter pays principle applies for river remediation.
Liability of state and regulatory authorities for inaction.
Judgment:
Supreme Court applied the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle.
All dyeing units were mandated to install ZLD plants, treat effluent completely, and pay for river remediation.
The court emphasized that environmental degradation cannot be ignored for industrial growth.
Significance:
Established that industrial clusters are accountable for environmental restoration.
Led to massive investments in effluent treatment plants across Tirupur.
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Tanneries and textile dyeing units in Vellore district were discharging untreated effluent into the Palar River.
The pollution led to water contamination affecting agriculture and public health.
Issues:
Whether the polluter pays principle can be applied in India.
Responsibility of industrial units and government authorities for environmental harm.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that polluter pays principle is part of Indian law.
Industry must pay for restoration, and continuous monitoring of effluent treatment is required.
Regulatory authorities were instructed to enforce strict compliance.
Significance:
Set a precedent for holding industries financially liable for environmental damage.
Cemented judicial approach of proactive environmental protection.
3. Amar Colour Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (NGT, 2024)
Facts:
The dyeing unit in Amritsar repeatedly violated environmental norms, discharging untreated chemical effluents.
Punjab Pollution Control Board failed to take timely action.
Issues:
Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) can order closure and fines.
Potential for criminal prosecution of factory owners for repeated violations.
Judgment:
NGT ordered closure of the unit until full compliance.
Imposed penalty of Rs 1 crore.
Recommended criminal prosecution of directors for violation of environmental laws.
Significance:
Demonstrates that NGT has wide powers to enforce environmental compliance.
Shows possibility of criminal accountability for industrial pollution.
4. Public Action Committee v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee (Najafgarh Dyeing Units, 2024)
Facts:
Four jeans dyeing factories in Delhi operated without consent and discharged effluents into drains feeding the Yamuna River.
They were also extracting groundwater illegally.
Action Taken:
Factories were sealed immediately by municipal and pollution control authorities.
Pollution control authorities were directed to submit detailed compliance reports to the NGT.
Significance:
Highlights that operating without proper consent/licence is a serious offense.
Enforcement can involve sealing factories even before judicial orders if violations are evident.
5. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Dyeing Units, Erode (2015)
Facts:
Several textile dyeing units in Erode operated without environmental consent and discharged untreated effluents into drains.
Action Taken:
TNPCB demolished non-compliant factories to prevent further pollution.
Registered criminal cases against the factory owners.
Significance:
Shows extreme regulatory enforcement for environmental violations.
Serves as a warning that continued non-compliance can lead to physical closure and criminal liability.
6. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association v. Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association (High Court / Enforcement Phase, 2009)
Facts:
Following the Supreme Court orders in the Tirupur case, non-compliant factories were refusing to pay for river desilting and remediation.
Judgment/Action:
High Court directed:
Payment of environmental compensation by defaulting units.
Mandatory installation of effluent treatment plants within specific timelines.
Continuous monitoring by state pollution control board.
Significance:
Reinforced enforcement of Supreme Court orders.
Demonstrated judicial insistence on compliance rather than mere promises.
Key Takeaways Across Cases:
Polluter Pays Principle: Industrial units must pay for environmental remediation.
Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) is often mandatory for dyeing/bleaching clusters.
Consent & Compliance: Running factories without environmental clearance is a punishable offense.
Criminal Liability: Repeat offenders can face criminal prosecution.
Regulatory Accountability: Courts hold both industry and pollution boards responsible.
Proactive Enforcement: Closure, sealing, demolition, and fines are tools for compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments