Introduction:
The legal saga of the Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu unfolds as Vedanta Limited fights for the reopening of its facility. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, grapples with the complex issues surrounding the closure and the potential reopening of the Tuticorin-based copper plant. The clash revolves around environmental concerns, public welfare, and the economic impact of shutting down a facility that once met a significant portion of India’s copper demand.
Arguments from Vedanta Limited:
Vedanta, represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, challenges the state’s decision to deny the renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO). The company contests allegations related to copper slag dumping, gypsum pond construction, hazardous waste authorization, groundwater pollution, and ambient air quality. Divan argues that the closure was disproportionate, emphasizing the economic significance of the plant and refuting claims of environmental violations.
Counter Arguments from the State of Tamil Nadu:
The State, through Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and CS Vaidyanathan, underscores extensive pollution issues leading to the plant’s closure. They present findings from committees and emphasize Vedanta’s failure to address concerns despite recommendations. The State questions the need for an expert committee, highlighting the detailed judgment from the Madras High Court in 2020, which supported the closure.
Key Points Discussed in Court:
1. Copper Slag Dumping:
Divan argues that copper slag is non-hazardous and challenges the non-renewal of CTO based on alleged violations related to slag disposal. The State, however, raises concerns about Vedanta’s history of non-compliance with directives on slag disposal.
2. Gypsum Pond Construction:
Vedanta defends its efforts to upgrade the gypsum pond, citing compliance with Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines. The State disputes this, citing environmental hazards associated with phosphor-gypsum and raising concerns about Vedanta’s waste management practices.
3. Hazardous Waste Authorization:
The court questions Vedanta’s operation post-expiry of hazardous waste authorization. Divan attributes the delay to bureaucratic processes, while the State claims Vedanta’s applications were incomplete.
4. Groundwater Analysis Reports:
Divan denies allegations of groundwater pollution, emphasizing the longstanding practice of TNPCB’s sample collection. The State presents independent groundwater testing showing pollution levels, asserting the plant’s impact on the local water quality.
5. Ambient Air Analysis for Arsenic:
Vedanta argues compliance with ambient air quality reporting for arsenic. The State challenges Vedanta’s use of an in-house lab, alleging misrepresentation and unreliable data.
6. Green Belt and Other Environmental Concerns:
TNPCB highlights various environmental issues, including the non-maintenance of a green belt, improper stack sizing, and transportation practices. Vedanta contends that the closure order is disproportionate, impacting the copper supply and economy.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court suggests the formation of an expert committee comprising representatives from the environment ministry, NEERI, CPCB, IIT, TNPCB, Vedanta, and independent experts. The committee, possibly chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, would assess conditions for resuming operations, ensuring environmental compliance. Vedanta might be allowed refurbishment at its own risk pending the committee’s report.