Growth, and what it left in the water
By the 1990s hundreds of tanneries in Vellore and nearby districts were letting untreated waste into the Palar and the land around it. Wells turned salty and coloured, and farmers said their fields were failing.
What the court said
A local citizens’ group filed a public interest case. On 28 August 1996 the Supreme Court said development and the environment are not enemies, but that the polluter must pay and that action must come before harm, the precautionary principle. Both ideas became part of Indian law.
Development and the environment are not enemies. But the polluter pays.
Tanneries had to treat their waste, mostly through shared treatment plants, or close. The court set up a Loss of Ecology Authority to measure the damage and collect compensation. In 2001 it ordered ₹26.82 crore to be paid to 29,193 people.
Treating water costs money
Owners rushed to build shared plants, and early ones did not meet the standard. Over the years the rules tightened to zero liquid discharge: treat the water and reuse it, and let nothing out. That added a real cost to every hide, and many small tanneries could not carry it.
The rest moved toward finished leather, uppers and shoes, which earn enough to pay for clean water.
Still not finished
In January 2025 the Supreme Court returned to the Palar. It held that the polluters’ liability did not stop in 1998 but lasts until the damage is fully reversed, ordered compensation to be reassessed and paid, and said tanneries that fail zero-discharge rules must shut.
Points for a finance reader
- Pollution is a cost you pay later, with interest. Damage left untreated came back as compensation, closures and a case still running 30 years on.
- Put treatment in the cost sheet. Count effluent treatment per hide or per pair, as CAS-14 does, so the price covers it.
- Share what one firm cannot afford. Shared treatment plants let small units meet a standard none could meet alone.