Supreme Court mandates quarterly on-site inspections to ensure CPCB compliance in JSW slag management case

Mumbai: In a significant order with wider regulatory implications, the Supreme Court of India has directed authorities to carry out physical on-site inspections every three months to verify compliance with the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) 2023 guidelines governing the management of iron and steel slag.

The directions were issued while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 13883 of 2025, Samita Rajendra Patil vs Jindal Steel Works Ltd & Others, a case that raised concerns regarding the handling and storage of pyro-metallurgical slag generated by iron and steel plants.

What the court examined

According to the order, two issues arose for consideration before the court.
The first related to the nature of the slag being disposed of, which official respondents claimed to be non-hazardous.
The second issue concerned non-compliance with the CPCB’s 2023 “Guidelines on Management of Pyro-metallurgical Slags (Iron & Steel)”, particularly Clause 6.0, which lays down safeguards for storage, handling and environmental protection.

While the court stated that it was not inclined at this stage to pass any conclusive order on the nature of the slag itself, it acknowledged the grievance raised by the appellant regarding implementation of the guidelines on the ground.

Clause 6.0: the regulatory benchmark

Clause 6.0 of the CPCB guidelines requires steel plants to adopt strict environmental safeguards, including:

• Impermeable and lined storage yards
• Minimum base thickness and geo-membrane protection
• Collection and treatment of surface run-off
• Prevention of soil and groundwater contamination
• Periodic monitoring of groundwater for heavy metals

These measures are intended to ensure that slag handling does not adversely affect land or water resources.

The Supreme Court’s direction

Taking these factors into account, the court directed that concerned authorities must conduct thorough on-site inspections once every three months to ascertain whether Clause 6.0 is being complied with, and submit compliance reports accordingly. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, while leaving statutory remedies open in case of future grievances.

Company response

JSW’s response to the court’s observations and directions was not available at the time of publication.
However, the order places a clear and continuing obligation on regulatory authorities to monitor compliance with the CPCB’s 2023 standards.