INDUSTRIALISATION IN ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE ZONES: A CONSTITUTIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE

Abstract

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL), initiated by Jeevastra Earth Watch before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Prakrithi, interrogates the constitutional, statutory, and international dimensions of unchecked industrialisation within ecologically fragile zones (EFAs). At its core lies the Kalipur Industrial Investment Zone in Velanadu, where a joint venture between the state-owned Velanadu Pulp & Paper Ltd. and the foreign investor CIDRON Paper Corporation has allegedly engaged in hazardous waste disposal, resulting in ecological degradation, public health risks, and regulatory inaction. The petition raises four interlinked questions of legal significance.

i. First, whether an environmental NGO possesses locus standi under Article 32 to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction in cases of ecological harm.

ii. Second, whether a foreign corporation, by virtue of its joint venture with a state entity, may be

held jointly and severally liable for environmental damage despite the absence of explicit statutory

provisions on cross-border liability.

iii. Third, whether land application and quarry dumping of industrial sludge violate the Waste

Management Rules, 2016, and Prakrithi’s obligations under the Stockholm and Basel Conventions.

iv. Fourth, whether state inaction in the face of scientific evidence and administrative warnings

constitutes a constitutional breach of Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g).

Doctrinally, the PIL advances the Public Trust Doctrine, Polluter Pays Principle, and Precautionary Principle as interpretive tools to expand liability beyond domestic operators to foreign corporate partners. It emphasises the expanded jurisprudence of locus standi as recognised in S.P. Gupta and Rural Litigation, complemented by Section 18(2)(e) of the NGT Act and the Aarhus Convention’s guarantee of environmental justice. Empirical findings—including elevated COD levels, soil contamination, and traces of organochlorine compounds such as TLAMS, a known endocrine disruptor—demonstrate systemic non-compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, 2016, and international best practices. The petition’s innovative contribution lies in addressing a jurisprudential lacuna: extending environmental accountability to foreign joint venture partners in state-led projects. By harmonising constitutional mandates, statutory safeguards, and international commitments, it proposes a holistic liability framework that strengthens environmental governance in a globalised economy. It situates environmental dignity as integral to the right to life under Article 21 and links ecological harm with intergenerational equity and participatory governance. The reliefs sought include judicial recognition of joint liability, the creation of an independent monitoring authority, immediate cessation of unlawful waste disposal, ecological restoration under the Polluter Pays Principle, and institutionalisation of participatory environmental governance mechanisms. Ultimately, this petition does not merely contest industrial excess; it urges the judiciary to reaffirm that constitutional morality demands ecological stewardship, that regulatory paralysis cannot shield corporate wrongs, and that environmental rights are not ancillary but core to human dignity in Prakrith.