Background of the controversy
The row revolves around Tata Chemicals’ Mithapur facility and a series of open‑channel conduits that have historically discharged 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 centerpiece of a protracted legal battle.
On 25 May, the Gujarat High Court rejected Tata Chemicals’ plea, ruling that the firm possessed no vested rights over the long‑standing wastewater channels and that the state‑owned coastal land forming part of the marine sanctuary had been improperly occupied.
Supreme Court’s interim order
A three‑judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, together with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued a notice on Tata Chemicals’ petition challenging the Gujarat High Court verdict. The apex court instructed that no coercive measures be taken against the company while the petition is examined, effectively granting it temporary protection.
The bench also directed the Gujarat government to file its written response by 2 November. After the reply is received, the matter will revert to the Supreme Court for further deliberation.
Environmental assessment mandated
The Gujarat High Court had earlier ordered the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to constitute a panel of experts to assess the environmental impact on the affected coastal stretch. The panel was tasked with proposing mitigation measures, estimating any compensation, and completing its study within three months.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Tata Chemicals before the Supreme Court, highlighted that the dispute raises both ecological concerns and accusations of land encroachment.
What comes next?
With the Supreme Court’s stay in force, Tata Chemicals is insulated from any immediate enforcement actions. The next step hinges on the Gujarat government’s written reply; thereafter the apex court will decide whether the broader challenge to the High Court’s findings will proceed.
