Chunnakam Case Study | Environmental Litigation & All You Need to Know

In one of Sri Lanka’s most significant environmental law cases, Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environmental Authority and Others – widely known as the Chunnakam case or the Chunnakam power plant case – the Court of Appeal addressed critical issues of environmental degradation, industrial pollution, and state accountability. This landmark judgment set a powerful precedent in holding authorities responsible for violating constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment. The case highlights the growing role of public interest litigation in Sri Lanka’s legal landscape and marks a turning point in enforcing environmental justice for affected communities. In this article, we break down the facts, legal reasoning, and the broader impact of the court’s decision on future environmental governance in Sri Lanka.

Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environmental Authority & Others (Chunnakam Case)

Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka | SC FR 141/2015
Known as: Chunnakam Case
Before: Priyantha Jayawardena, PC, J., Prasanna Jayawardena, PC, J.  and L.T.B. Dehideniya, J. 
Decided on: April, 4 2019 

Click to view all insights with access to the original judgement in AI Pazz.

Introduction

The Chunnakam case stands as a landmark judgment in Sri Lankan environmental jurisprudence, emphasizing the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Facts of the Chunnakam Case

Chunnakam, located in the Jaffna Peninsula, has been a focal point for electricity generation since the mid-20th century. The original Chunnakam Power Station, established in 1958, was supplemented over the years by several facilities, including the Northern Power Station and the Uthuru Janani Power Station. These developments aimed to meet the growing energy demands of the region

However, from 2008 onwards, residents began reporting contamination of groundwater and soil, attributing it to the operations of these power plants. Complaints highlighted the presence of oil and grease in well water, rendering it unfit for consumption and daily use.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the operations of the Northern Power Company caused environmental pollution that adversely affected residents’ fundamental rights.

2. Whether the failure of the Central Environmental Authority and other state institutions to monitor and regulate the plant’s operations amounted to a violation of their duties under the law.

3. Whether the environmental damage constituted a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution (equality before the law and equal protection of the law).

4. Whether compensation could be ordered by the Supreme Court? 

Legal Proceedings

In response to the environmental concerns, Dr. Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam, representing the Centre for Environment and Nature Studies, filed a Fundamental Rights petition in 2015. The petition alleged that the Northern Power Company’s operations led to environmental degradation, violating residents’ rights under Article 12(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

The petition also criticized the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) and the Board of Investment (BoI) for their failure to regulate and monitor the power plant’s environmental compliance, thereby breaching their public trust responsibilities.

Legal Rules

The Supreme Court relied on several core legal principles and doctrines in reaching its decision:

• Article 12(1) of the Constitution – Right to Equality and Equal Protection
• Polluter Pays Principle
• Public Trust Doctrine.
• Right to a Healthy Environment (Implied Right)
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court’s judgment was comprehensive, addressing multiple facets of the case:

• Environmental Contamination: The Court acknowledged substantial evidence indicating that the Northern Power Company’s operations had led to significant oil contamination of groundwater and soil in Chunnakam. Reports from the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) and other entities corroborated these findings 

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that the environmental degradation infringed upon the fundamental rights of Chunnakam residents. It emphasized that access to clean water is integral to the right to equality and equal protection under the law.

• Regulatory Lapses: The judgment criticized the CEA and BoI for their arbitrary and unreasonable inaction, highlighting their failure to enforce environmental standards and protect public health.

• Application of the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle: In a significant move, the Court applied the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, directing the Northern Power Company to compensate affected residents. This principle asserts that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.

Obiter Dicta

• Environmental Protection as a Constitutional Imperative: The Court noted that environmental protection is not just a policy matter but a constitutional necessity that should guide administrative and executive decision-making.

• Wider Role of Judiciary in Environmental Matters: The Court discussed the evolving nature of environmental law and the role of the judiciary in bridging the gap between statutory law and fundamental rights.

• Need for Legislative Reforms: Though not a binding part of the judgment, the Court hinted that legislative reforms may be needed to clarify and enforce environmental rights more directly.

Legal Remedies

The Supreme Court ordered the Northern Power Company to pay Rs. 20 million in compensation. Each affected household was to receive a maximum of Rs. 40,000. The distribution of funds was to be overseen by a committee led by the NWSDB, ensuring that only residents whose wells were contaminated with oil and grease received compensation

Furthermore, the Court mandated that the power plant’s operations remain suspended until it complied with established environmental standards. This directive underscored the necessity of adhering to environmental regulations before resuming industrial activities.

Broader Implications of the Chunnakam case

This judgment has far-reaching implications:

• Environmental Jurisprudence: The case reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding environmental rights and holding polluters accountable.

• Regulatory Oversight: It highlights the importance of proactive regulatory bodies in preventing environmental degradation.

• Public Participation: The case exemplifies how civil society can play a pivotal role in environmental advocacy and litigation.

• Policy Development: The application of the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle may influence future environmental policies and enforcement mechanisms in Sri Lanka.

Significance of the Chunnakam Case

•  Affirmation of the Right to a Clean Environment: This case is a landmark decision in Sri Lanka’s environmental jurisprudence. Although the Constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to a healthy environment, the Court affirmed it as an integral part of the right to equality and right to life, marking an important shift in how fundamental rights are interpreted.

•  Application of the “Polluter Pays” Principle: The Supreme Court applied the international environmental law principle that those who cause environmental damage must bear the costs of remediation. This introduced accountability for environmental harm and reinforced the principle as part of Sri Lanka’s legal framework.

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The case was filed by an environmental activist, not directly affected residents. The Court’s willingness to entertain the petition shows its openness to public interest litigation when the environment and fundamental rights of the community are involved.

• Accountability of State Authorities: The judgment exposed the failure of regulatory bodies (CEA and BoI) to perform their duties. It emphasized the public trust doctrine, holding authorities responsible for environmental protection.

• Environmental Rule of Law: It set a precedent for judicial intervention in environmental matters and stressed that economic development must not compromise environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

The Chunnakam Power Plant case serves as a precedent in Sri Lanka’s environmental law landscape. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights and the environment, emphasizing that industrial development must not come at the expense of public health and ecological integrity.

Judgments Similar to Chunnakam Case

Several landmark Sri Lankan cases resonate with the Chunnakam Power Plant  judgment in recognizing environmental rights and holding authorities accountable:

Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (Eppawala Case) [2000] 3 SLR 243 – Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

– Facts: The government signed an agreement with a foreign company to mine phosphate in Eppawela. The petitioners argued it would cause irreversible environmental damage.
– Held: The Supreme Court recognized the public trust doctrine, holding that natural resources are held in trust by the state for the people.
– Significance: Established that development must be balanced with environmental protection; upheld environmental sustainability as part of fundamental rights under Articles 12 and 14.

  Click here to explore the Eppawala Case Study

Cases referred to

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FOUNDATION vs. CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY [2001 3 SLR 330]

AUSTRALIA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INCORPORATED vs. MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY [2017 FCAFC 134]

The King v. Dharmasena [(1949) 50 N. L. R. 505.]

DE SILVA vs. DON FRANCIS [1924 2 Times Law Reports 4]

SIVASAMPU vs. JUAN APPU [38 NLR 369]

BULANKULAMA vs. MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT [2000 3 SLR 243]

GUNARATNE vs. THE HOMAGAMA PRADESHIYA SABHAWA [1998 2 SLR 11]

WIJEBANDA vs. CONSERVATOR GENERAL OF FORESTS [2009 1 SLR 337]

PREMALAL PERERA vs. TISSA KARALIYADDE [SC FR 891/2009 decided on 31st March 2016]

VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM vs. UNION OF INDIA [1996 Indlaw SC 1075]

S. JAGANATH vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1997 SC 811]

M.C. MEHTA vs. KAMALNATH [1997 1 SCC 388]

RAMJI PATEL vs. ANGRIK UPBHOKTA MARG DHARSHAK MANCH [2000 3 SCC 29]

ASHIK vs. BANDULA, O-I-C WELIGAMA [2007 1 SLR 191]

SUGATHAPALA MENDIS vs. CHANDRIKA KUMARATUNGE [2008 2 SLR 339]

ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION LTD vs. MAHAWELI AUTHORITY OF SRI LANKA [2010 1 SLR 1]

Sideek v. Jacolyn Seneviratne and Others [(1984) 1 Sri.L.R. 8]

Get access all the law reports including all NLR and SLR Volumes and all Sri Lankan case laws in AI Pazz. Sri Lanka’s largest and the most up-to-date digital legal library.