What was the main issue in the Sterlite case?

Whether Sterlite concealed facts and violated the Air Act (Sections 21, 31A) and the NGT Act Section 19(4)(e) by failing to take required environmental measures.

What did the Court decide?

The Court upheld the NGT/TNPCB action to close the plant, finding serious pollution and non-compliance with conditions.

Which rights and duties did the judgment highlight?

The right to a clean environment under Article 21 and the State’s duty to protect the environment, including power to regulate polluting industries.

Did the case involve health impacts?

Yes. The record noted environmental damage and public health concerns like respiratory and skin problems in the affected area.

What laws were central to the case?

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Sections 21 and 31A—and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 19(4)(e).

sterlite-industries-v-tnpcb-thoothukudi-case

Sterlite Industries v. TNPCB (Thoothukudi)

Copper smelter closure case—Court backs strict environmental compliance and recognizes the right to environment under Article 21.

Supreme Court of India 2013 M.A. No. 78 of 2013 (SZ) Environment & Pollution Control ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 31 Oct 2025

CASE_TITLE: M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) v. The Chairman, TNPCB & Ors. PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Sterlite Industries case, TNPCB closure, Article 21 environment SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Air Act s.21 s.31A, NGT Act s.19(4)(e), pollution control, Thoothukudi PUBLISH_DATE: 31-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: sterlite-industries-v-tnpcb-thoothukudi-case

Quick Summary

Sterlite ran a large copper smelter at Thoothukudi. After complaints and studies, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ordered closure for pollution and non-compliance. The National Green Tribunal supported the action. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the closure approach, stressing strict compliance, public health, and the fundamental right to a clean environment under Article 21.

Issues

Did the company conceal facts and breach Section 21 (consent to operate) and Section 31A (closure/direction powers) of the Air Act, 1981?
Was there contravention of Section 19(4)(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 by not taking required environmental safeguards?

Rules

Air Act, 1981 (ss.21, 31A): Industries must obtain and follow consent conditions; Boards may issue directions, including closure, to stop pollution.

NGT Act, 2010 (s.19(4)(e)): Tribunal can pass orders to prevent, control, and abate environmental harm.

Enforcement Principle: Regulators must actively enforce environmental law and act against persistent non-compliance, prioritizing health and ecology.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Sterlite Industries v. TNPCB

1996: Sterlite commissions a copper smelter at Thoothukudi, capacity around 400,000 TPA.

Over years, complaints rise about emissions and effluents affecting air and water.

2013: TNPCB orders closure based on inspections and a CPCB study showing excessive pollutants.

Sterlite challenges the order before the NGT. The NGT upholds the regulator’s action.

Sterlite appeals further. The Supreme Court considers compliance records, health impacts, and law.

Arguments

Appellant (Sterlite)

We followed consent terms; any exceedance was episodic and corrected.
Closure is disproportionate; monitoring and upgrades can control emissions.
Plant supports jobs and copper supply; consider economic costs.

Respondents (TNPCB/State/Residents)

Repeated non-compliance; CPCB/board data shows excessive pollutants.
Health complaints: respiratory and skin issues linked to emissions.
Law allows closure where operations threaten environment and public health.

Judgment

Held: The Court upheld the NGT/TNPCB decision to close the Thoothukudi smelter for serious pollution and failure to meet conditions.

Regulators acted within powers under the Air Act and NGT Act.
Public health and environment outweigh purely economic claims.

Rights noted: The right to a clean environment is part of Article 21. The State has a duty to protect the environment and regulate polluting industries.

Ratio (Core Legal Principle)

When evidence shows persistent non-compliance and health risk, pollution boards may use closure powers. Courts will support such action to secure Article 21 and statutory mandates.

Why It Matters

Signals zero tolerance for ongoing pollution breaches.
Puts public health at the center of industrial regulation.
Shows how courts balance economy with environmental rights.

Key Takeaways

Consent conditions under the Air Act are binding; repeated breaches justify closure.
Article 21 includes the right to environment; regulators must act to protect it.
Courts defer to well-reasoned, evidence-based environmental orders.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “C-L-O-S-E” → Consent broken • Lawful board powers • Ongoing risk • State duty • Environment first.

Check consent & monitoring data.
Compare exceedances with legal limits and health reports.
Conclude on closure where non-compliance persists.

IRAC

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Was Sterlite’s operation in breach, justifying closure?	Air Act ss.21, 31A; NGT Act s.19(4)(e); Article 21 environmental right.	Regulatory and study data showed excessive pollutants and non-compliance.	Closure order upheld to protect environment and health.

Glossary

TNPCB: Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board—state regulator for air and water pollution.
CPCB: Central Pollution Control Board—national authority that sets standards and audits compliance.
Consent to Operate: Permission under the Air Act to run a plant, with strict conditions and limits.