Criminal Liability For Air Pollution Caused By Factories
1. Legal Framework for Criminal Liability for Air Pollution
Air pollution in India is primarily regulated under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Factories causing pollution can face criminal liability under:
Air Act, 1981 – Sections 22, 24, 37, 38, 39 deal with offenses and penalties for non-compliance.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 15, 16 for punishment for contraventions of rules.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 268 (public nuisance), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 270 (malignant act likely to spread disease dangerous to life), 277 (making the atmosphere noxious), and 278 (making a place noxious to the public health).
Key Principle: Liability arises if a factory knowingly or negligently emits pollutants that degrade air quality or cause harm to health, ecology, or public safety. Criminal liability is distinct from civil liability; it requires mens rea (knowledge) or gross negligence.
2. Landmark Cases
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Ganga Pollution Case
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Several tanneries in Kanpur discharged untreated effluents into the Ganga, polluting the river and surrounding environment, including the air in the vicinity.
Issue: Whether factories causing environmental pollution can be criminally liable.
Judgment: SC imposed strict liability on polluting industries, holding that failure to prevent pollution is a public nuisance under IPC.
Key Principle: Introduced the concept of absolute liability for hazardous industries; even if harm is unintentional, liability arises.
Case 2: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Chemical industries in Kerala discharged toxic effluents into the environment, affecting air, water, and land.
Issue: Can industries be criminally prosecuted for environmental damage?
Judgment: Court reinforced polluter pays principle and held industries liable for environmental degradation. Factories failing to prevent pollution can be prosecuted under Sections 15 and 16 of the Environmental Protection Act.
Significance: Expanded scope of criminal liability to include negligent environmental management, not just intentional harm.
Case 3: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharged untreated effluents, polluting air and water.
Issue: Liability for environmental damage and air pollution caused by factories.
Judgment: Courts held that industries causing environmental pollution are liable under absolute liability, reinforcing that ignorance is no defense.
Principle: Industries operating in hazardous areas are under a continuous duty to prevent environmental pollution.
Case 4: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case, 1998)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Factories and vehicles in Delhi caused excessive air pollution.
Issue: Who bears responsibility for air quality under criminal law?
Judgment: SC directed factories to adopt cleaner technologies and emissions standards. Non-compliance could amount to criminal liability under IPC Sections 268 and 277 (public nuisance).
Significance: Expanded criminal liability to industrial emissions, emphasizing compliance with government standards.
Case 5: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Industries in Patna released toxic gases affecting air quality and human health.
Issue: Can victims seek criminal action for air pollution?
Judgment: Court recognized right to life under Article 21 includes clean air and environment. Factories causing pollution can be prosecuted for criminal negligence under IPC Sections 268, 277.
Principle: Environmental harm affecting public health can be treated as public nuisance.
Case 6: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case, 1996)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Industrial emissions near Agra were causing air pollution damaging the Taj Mahal.
Issue: Whether factories can be criminally liable for air pollution affecting heritage structures and public health.
Judgment: Court ordered relocation/closure of polluting industries; held that continued pollution is a criminal offense.
Principle: Liability extends beyond human health to environmental protection and cultural heritage.
Case 7: Indian Oil Corporation v. NEERI (1991)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Indian Oil’s refinery released harmful emissions affecting surrounding population.
Issue: Criminal accountability of industries for negligent air pollution.
Judgment: Industry was held criminally liable for failing to take precautionary measures and violating air pollution norms.
Significance: Reinforced that preventive measures are legally mandated; non-compliance attracts criminal consequences.
3. Summary of Legal Principles
Absolute Liability: Factories engaged in hazardous processes are strictly liable for air pollution regardless of intent.
Public Nuisance Doctrine: Air pollution affecting public health constitutes a criminal offense under IPC Sections 268, 277, and 278.
Criminal Negligence: Even unintentional negligence leading to pollution can attract imprisonment/fine.
Polluter Pays Principle: Industries must compensate for environmental damage.
Preventive Duty: Factories must adopt pollution control measures; failure leads to criminal liability.
Conclusion
Criminal liability for air pollution caused by factories in India is firmly established under Air Act, Environment Protection Act, and IPC, reinforced through judicial activism. The courts have consistently expanded liability, emphasizing absolute liability, public nuisance, and preventive obligations, ensuring both environmental protection and public health.
RELATED Blog
comments