The controversy revolves around Tata Chemicals’ Mithapur facility and a series of open‑channel drains that have historically emptied effluent into the Gulf of Kutch. In 2006 the district collector dismissed the company’s claim to the land, a decision that later became the centerpiece of a protracted litigation.

On 25 May, the Gujarat High Court rejected Tata Chemicals’ petition, holding that the firm possessed no legal entitlement to the long‑standing wastewater passages and that the state‑owned coastal area designated as a marine sanctuary had been unlawfully occupied.

Supreme Court’s provisional 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’ challenge to the Gujarat High Court verdict. The apex court instructed that no coercive measures be taken against the company while the petition is under review, effectively providing a temporary shield.

The bench also directed the Gujarat government to file its written response by 2 November, after which the matter will be revisited by the Supreme Court for further adjudication.

Mandated environmental review

The Gujarat High Court had earlier ordered the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to constitute a panel of specialists to assess the ecological impact on the affected coastal stretch. The panel was tasked with proposing mitigation steps, quantifying compensation, and completing its report within a three‑month timeframe.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Tata Chemicals before the Supreme Court, underscored that the dispute raises both environmental protection issues and allegations of illegal land occupation.

What lies ahead?

With the Supreme Court’s stay in effect, Tata Chemicals is insulated from any immediate enforcement actions. The next critical step is the Gujarat government’s written reply; following that, the apex court will determine whether the broader challenge to the high court’s findings will proceed.