Origins of the controversy
The fight revolves around Tata Chemicals’ Mithapur facility and a series of open‑channel conduits that have historically carried its effluent into the Gulf of Kutch. In 2006 the district collector denied the company’s claim to the land, a decision that later became the cornerstone of a protracted legal battle.
On 25 May, the Gujarat High Court rejected Tata Chemicals’ petition, holding that the firm possessed no vested rights over the long‑standing wastewater channels and concluding that the state‑owned coastal land forming part of the marine sanctuary had been improperly occupied.
Supreme Court’s temporary order
A three‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued a notice on Tata Chemicals’ challenge to the High Court verdict. The apex court instructed that no coercive measures be taken against the company while the petition is being examined, effectively granting it interim protection.
The bench also directed the Gujarat government to file its written response by 2 November, after which the matter will return to the Supreme Court for further deliberation.
Mandated environmental review
The Gujarat High Court had previously ordered the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to convene a panel of specialists to assess the ecological impact on the affected coastal stretch. The experts were tasked with proposing remedial actions, estimating any compensation, and completing the study within a three‑month timeframe.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Tata Chemicals before the Supreme Court, underscored that the dispute raises both environmental concerns and accusations of land encroachment.
Looking ahead
With the Supreme Court’s stay in effect, Tata Chemicals is insulated from any immediate enforcement steps. The next critical step is the Gujarat government’s written reply; following that, the apex court will decide whether the broader challenge to the High Court’s findings will proceed.
