investigation team; rather, the court gave detailed directions as to what the CBI
should investigate and requested it to submit a report.
(^117) Later on, the central
government opposed the continuous monitoring of investigation by the Supreme
Court: it argued that once a charge sheet has been filed in the court, such
monitoring should come to an end.^118 It is worth noting that in relation to
corruption allegations concerning the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the court
had declined to monitor the investigation conducted by the CBI.^119
In the mid- 1990 s, the Supreme Court also developed the ‘polluter-pays’ principle
and the ‘precautionary principle’ as part of sustainable-development jurispru-
dence.^120 It would be useful to revisit a case decided in 1996 on a writ petition
filed in 1989 – Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actionv.Union of India^121 – because
the court had to deal with this matter again in July 2011. In the instant case, the
question before the Supreme Court was the nature of the remedy available for
hazards to health and the environment caused by private chemical manufacturing
plants in Bicchri village in the state of Rajasthan. Since the plants were operating
without having obtained clearance from the Pollution Control Board, the court
found them absolutely liable for the harm caused. It applied, moreover, the
‘polluter-pays’ principle and ruled that the responsibility for repairing the damage
is that of the offending industry. The polluting companies were thus ordered to
bear the costs of remedying the damage caused by their business activities.
The Supreme Court also ordered closure of these polluting units because they
had continuously violated the law, did not implement court orders and tried to
conceal the sludge.
Although the court gave detailed directions in this case more than fifteen years
ago, these directions were not complied with – something that the court noted in its
July 2011 order.^122 Lamenting the abuse of process resorted to by the involved
companies, the court directed them to pay 373 , 850 , 000 rupees (about US$ 7. 4
million) along with compound interest since the original order date of November
1997 and also pay costs of 1 million rupees (about US$ 20 , 000 ). As analysed below,
(^117) Ibid., paras. 14 and 15.
(^118) J. Venkatesan, ‘Don’t cross Lakshman Rekha, Centre tells court’,The Hindu, 22 September
2011 ,www.thehindu.com/news/national/article 2476730 .ece.
(^119) ‘Supreme Court refuses plea to monitor CBI probe into CWG scams’,Times of
India, 16 September 2011 ,http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ 2011 - 09 - 16 /india/
30164628 _ 1 _cbi-probe- corruption-cases-gyan-sudha-misra.
(^120) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actionv.Union of India( 1996 ) 3 SCC 212 ;Vellore Citizen
Welfare Forumv.Union of IndiaAIR 1996 SC 2715. See Harish Salve, ‘Justice between
generations: environment and social justice’, in B.N. Kirpal et al. (eds.),Supreme but Not
Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India(New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2000 ), p. 360 at 369 – 73.
(^121) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actionv.Union of India( 1996 ) 3 SCC 212.
(^122) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actionv.Union of India, IA Nos. 36 and 44 in Writ
Petition (C) No 967 of 1989 , decided on 18 July 2011 , para. 4.