Computer And Internet Fraud
Environmental Offences and Regulatory Compliance in India
Environmental offences involve violations of laws designed to protect air, water, forests, wildlife, and public health. Regulatory compliance ensures that individuals, industries, and organizations follow these laws to prevent environmental harm.
The key legislations include:
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Forest Conservation Act, 1980
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
1. Water Pollution Offences
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 prohibits discharge of pollutants into water bodies beyond permissible limits.
Case Law: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) – Ganga Pollution Case
Facts: Industrial units were discharging untreated effluents into the Ganga river.
Issue: Whether industries can discharge effluents without treatment.
Decision: Supreme Court directed all polluting industries to install effluent treatment plants. It reinforced the polluter pays principle.
Significance: Established strict liability for environmental damage, even if unintentional.
Case Law: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (1996)
Facts: Industries in Tamil Nadu were discharging toxic waste, contaminating groundwater.
Issue: Liability for remediation of environmental damage.
Decision: SC held industries strictly liable for compensation, emphasizing absolute liability principle, especially for hazardous industries.
Significance: Unlike general negligence, no exceptions (like Act of God) were allowed for hazardous industries.
2. Air Pollution Offences
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 makes it illegal to emit air pollutants beyond prescribed limits.
Case Law: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case, 1998)
Facts: Delhi faced severe air pollution from vehicle emissions.
Issue: Whether the state should regulate vehicle emissions.
Decision: SC directed conversion of all public transport to CNG and strict emission norms.
Significance: Expanded the concept of regulatory compliance to include proactive preventive measures.
Case Law: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996)
Facts: Tanneries were discharging effluents into rivers, causing air and water pollution.
Decision: Supreme Court reaffirmed the polluter pays principle and environmental protection as part of fundamental duty under Article 51A(g).
Significance: Linked industrial compliance with constitutional environmental responsibility.
3. Forest and Wildlife Offences
Forest Conservation Act, 1980
Offences: Illegal cutting of trees, encroachment, deforestation without approval.
Case Law: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1997) – Forest Case
Facts: Rampant deforestation and encroachment in forest areas.
Issue: Balance between development and forest conservation.
Decision: Supreme Court banned all tree felling in natural forests without permission.
Significance: Reinforced regulatory compliance and necessity of prior approval for forest use.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Offences: Hunting, poaching, or trade in endangered species.
Case Law: Centre for Environmental Law, WWF vs. Union of India (2000) – Tiger Conservation
Facts: Tigers were being poached in protected areas.
Decision: Supreme Court emphasized strict enforcement of wildlife protection laws and enhanced penalties for poachers.
Significance: Highlighted the need for regulatory compliance in conservation areas.
4. Hazardous Substances and Industrial Compliance
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Covers hazardous waste management, chemical handling, and environmental clearances.
Case Law: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (Hazardous Waste Case, 1996) – Already mentioned above.
Demonstrates absolute liability for hazardous substances, no excuses allowed.
Case Law: Bhopal Gas Tragedy Litigation (Union Carbide Case, 1984)
Facts: Gas leak at Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands and caused injuries.
Issue: Liability for industrial disaster.
Decision: Supreme Court and civil tribunals emphasized strict liability and need for preventive measures.
Significance: Landmark case showing consequences of non-compliance with environmental regulations.
5. Environmental Public Nuisance and Civic Compliance
Case Law: Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts: Groundwater contamination due to industrial effluents.
Issue: Can citizens claim right to clean environment?
Decision: Supreme Court held right to life under Article 21 includes right to clean environment.
Significance: Strengthened environmental compliance as a constitutional duty.
Key Principles Emerging from Case Law
Polluter Pays Principle: The polluter must bear the cost of environmental damage.
Precautionary Principle: Industries must prevent damage proactively; negligence is not an excuse.
Absolute Liability Principle: Especially for hazardous or inherently dangerous industries.
Regulatory Compliance is Mandatory: Prior approval, clearances, and adherence to standards cannot be bypassed.
Fundamental Rights and Duties: Environmental protection is both a constitutional right and duty.
RELATED Blog
comments