Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026

Can the polluter pays principle apply without proof that the person caused the damage?

Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors

2026 INSC 910 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2018
Coram: Satish Chandra Sharma; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.15 National Green Tribunal Act…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The applicability of the principle is contingent upon various factors, the foremost being the causation of real damage, and the establishment of a causal link between the actions of the project proponent and the resultant environmental degradation is equally necessary. The alleged person must be a “polluter” before it is held as absolutely liable in law, and the principle cannot be invoked unless the degradation is attributable to that person.

Headnote

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.15 — s.17(3) — Restoration and rehabilitation distinguished — Polluter pays principle — No fault liability — Causal link — Interim order — National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.15 — Restoration is not rehabilitation — Held: Rehabilitation means complete reparation so that the affected area becomes fully functional, while restoration means bringing it back to its original state regardless of how optimum that state was. Section 15 permits restitution or restoration; ordering rehabilitation exceeds that jurisdiction. (¶46, 47) Environmental law — Polluter pays principle — Causal link with the alleged polluter — Held further: The principle is contingent upon the causation of real damage and a causal link between the actions of the project proponent and the degradation. The alleged person must be a polluter before being held absolutely liable in law. (¶53) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s.17(3) — No fault applies to an accident — Held further: Sub-section (3) of Section 17 specifically applies to the case of an accident, the word referring to cases involving hazards such as a gas leak. It cannot found liability where no accident is in question. (¶52) Practice and procedure — Findings in an interim order — Without prejudice order — Held further: Findings in an interim order are interim because they rest on no full analysis of facts and evidence; treated as permanently binding, the order ceases to be interim and assumes finality. Impugned judgment set aside. (¶34)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 53However, the applicability of this principle is contingent upon various factors and the foremost factor is the causation of real damage. Further, the establishment of a causal link between the actions of the project proponent and the resultant environmental degradation is equally necessary. In other words, the alleged person must be a “polluter” before it is held as absolutely liable in law. No doubt, if this link is established, no excuse matters. However, the principle cannot be invoked unless the degradation is attributable to the alleged person. In the present case, the causal link has not been established by any standard. In fact, there is ample material on record to show that the event site was already in a dilapidated condition prior to its handing over to the appellant. We also find ourselves in disagreement with the Tribunal’s view that the appellant could not prove that it did not cause the damage. It is so because the Tribunal simply disallowed the appellant from questioning its earliest findings in the interim order dated 09.03.2016, and denied any opportunity to the appellant to revisit the said findings. Moreover, the material on record actually goes on to prove that damage, if any, cannot be attributed to the appellant. It is a different matter that the Tribunal overlooked the exculpatory material.

Acts & Sections

s.15 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s.17(3) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India v. Manoj Misra (Dead) & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can the NGT order rehabilitation of a site under Section 15 of the NGT Act?Does Section 17(3) of the NGT Act apply the no fault principle outside an accident?Can findings in an interim order be treated as final during the same proceeding?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections