Why in the News
Protection of Rajasthan’s Jojari, Luni and Bandi rivers has moved from unenforced pollution norms to court-imposed no-go zones: no construction within 100 metres of their edges, and no hazardous industries within 500 metres of their path or flood lines. A two-judge Supreme Court Bench set these limits in a suo motu writ petition, a case the Court began on its own in 2025. The case tests whether the Court should discipline the State’s regulators or keep standing in for them.
What is poisoning the Jojari, Luni and Bandi rivers?
- Seasonal rivers: The three are seasonal rivers of Rajasthan’s arid west, flowing through Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali districts.
- Industrial effluents: The region is a textile-dyeing and steelworking hub, and untreated effluents run straight into the rivers and soil, endangering about 20 lakh residents.
- Treatment gap: Sewage plants handle only about half the sewage of the three urban centres, the State told the Court in 2025.
- Underused shared plants: Common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) treat waste from clusters of small factories, like one sewage plant serving a whole housing colony. They are badly underused, which points to three likely failures:
- industrial units bypassing treatment;
- poor connections between factories and plants;
- too little capacity at some sites or in some periods.
- The takeaway: Treatment capacity exists on paper, but effluent does not reach it, so the rivers carry the waste.
What has the Supreme Court done?
- Oversight committee: A High-level Ecosystem Oversight Committee, chaired by Justice Sangeet Lodha, audits the plants and drafts a restoration plan. Its scathing status reports formed the basis of the bans.
- Stay cited as an excuse: The Court had paused a 2022 National Green Tribunal (NGT) order. It rebuked local authorities for using that pause as a reason not to enforce pollution norms.
- NGT compensation order: That order had imposed compensation on the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and the local administration in Jodhpur and Barmer.
- State liability: The Bench observed that the State itself could be held liable under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, treating its negligence as a failure it must pay for.
Why is this a case of state failure?
- Decades of neglect: A public interest litigation in the Rajasthan High Court flagged the problem in 2011, yet the Supreme Court is still having to order the government to act.
- Regularised illegal mining: Illegal sand mining is rampant in the riverbeds. Officials knew of it in some areas, yet granted legal leases there instead of stopping it.
- Possible collusion: The Court has taken seriously the possibility of collusion between State officials and industrial mafias.
Should the Court discipline regulators or replace them?
- Restoration still pending: The State has yet to restore the Jojari; the bans stop new damage but do not clean the river.
- Court as substitute regulator: The Court has recently tended to do the regulators’ work itself. Disciplining them into doing that work is the change the case calls for.
Challenges
- Same apparatus enforcing: The agencies found dysfunctional are the ones now expected to enforce the bans.
- Unmapped discharges: Without unit-wise effluent tracking, regulators cannot separate factories that bypass treatment from those that comply.
- Court-dependent enforcement: Compliance holds only while the Bench watches, as the misuse of its own stay showed.
Way Forward
- Connect every unit: The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board should verify that every dyeing and steel unit is piped to a working CETP.
- Recover restoration costs: Make polluting units and the State industrial corporation pay for cleaning the rivers.
- Official accountability: Hold named officers answerable for each missed enforcement step.
- Dated restoration plan: The State should notify a time-bound plan, with the Court reviewing compliance rather than running it.
Conclusion
Rajasthan’s agencies have failed at the basic job of keeping effluent out of its rivers, and the Court is filling the gap with bans. Whether the State’s regulators take that job back will decide if restoration happens.
Back2Basics: Polluter Pays Principle
- Meaning: Whoever causes pollution bears the cost of preventing it, repairing the damage and compensating those harmed.
- Judicial recognition: The Supreme Court declared it part of the law of the land in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996).
- Statutory basis: Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 directs the Tribunal to apply it, along with the precautionary principle and sustainable development.
- NGT practice: The Tribunal treats serious pollution as a continuing offence and imposes substantial compensation under the principle.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2013, GS3, 10 marks] Enumerate the National Water Policy of India. Taking river Ganges as an example, discuss the strategies which may be adopted for river water pollution control and management. What are the legal provisions for management and handling of hazardous wastes in India?”
