Criminal Liability For Environmental Damage
πΉ I. Introduction
Environmental protection is a critical concern in modern criminal law. Criminal liability arises when an individual, organization, or government entity violates laws meant to protect the environment, causing harm to air, water, soil, wildlife, or ecosystems.
In India, criminal liability for environmental damage is primarily derived from:
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Indian Penal Code (IPC) β Sections such as 268 (public nuisance), 278 (making atmosphere noxious), 277 (malignant acts).
πΉ II. Key Legal Provisions
1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Section 15 β Punishment for contravention of rules, imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine.
Section 16 β Abatement of environmental damage.
Section 17 β Offenses by companies; directors/officers can be held liable.
2. Water and Air Acts
Sections 24, 25 (Water Act) β Polluting water can lead to imprisonment and fines.
Section 37 (Air Act) β Polluting air attracts criminal sanctions.
3. IPC Sections
Section 268 β Public nuisance; imprisonment up to 6 months or fine.
Section 277 β Noxious substances causing danger to health.
Section 278 β Making atmosphere noxious.
πΉ III. Elements of Criminal Liability
Action or Omission β Must act or fail to act in violation of environmental law.
Causation of Damage β Environmental harm must be demonstrable.
Knowledge or Negligence β Liability arises if the act was intentional, reckless, or negligent.
Corporate or Individual Responsibility β Companies and officers can be criminally liable.
πΉ IV. Landmark Case Laws
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) β Oleum Gas Leak Case
Facts:
Oleum gas leak at Shriram Food and Fertilizer Factory, Delhi, endangered public health.
Held:
Supreme Court held the polluter is liable for damages under the principle of absolute liability.
Criminal liability arose under IPC Sections 268, 278 and Environment Protection Act.
Principle:
Companies engaging in hazardous activity are strictly liable for environmental damage.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) β Taj Trapezium Case
Facts:
Industrial pollution around Taj Mahal was causing marble corrosion.
Held:
Supreme Court restricted industries using coal and other pollutants near Taj Mahal.
Pollution control measures under Environment Protection Act were enforced.
Principle:
Criminal liability extends to industrial pollution affecting cultural heritage.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Chemical plants in Tamil Nadu discharged hazardous waste into land and water.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered closure of polluting units and compensation to victims.
Officers and companies held criminally liable under Sections 15β17 of EPA 1986.
Principle:
Courts can impose both civil and criminal liability for environmental harm.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
Facts:
Illegal construction by a company on Ravi River floodplains, causing environmental damage.
Held:
Supreme Court held corporate executives criminally liable.
Principle of Public Trust Doctrine applied: state and companies are trustees of natural resources.
Principle:
Corporate officers cannot escape criminal liability by claiming ignorance.
5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Tanneries in Vellore were discharging untreated effluents into Palar River.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized βPolluter Pays Principleβ.
Companies held liable for environmental damage under the Environment Protection Act and IPC.
Principle:
Strict liability and criminal accountability apply for environmental harm.
6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) β Forest Conservation Case
Facts:
Illegal felling of forest and degradation of biodiversity in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized forest and wildlife protection laws, issuing strict injunctions.
Violators held liable under Wildlife Protection Act and IPC Sections 268/277.
Principle:
Environmental crimes encompass deforestation and biodiversity loss, not just pollution.
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)
Facts:
Delhi faced severe air pollution due to diesel vehicles and industrial emissions.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered introduction of CNG buses, penalized non-compliant industries.
Criminal liability imposed for causing public nuisance and air pollution.
Principle:
Regulatory compliance failure in air and water laws can result in criminal sanctions.
πΉ V. Key Principles from Case Laws
Absolute Liability β Companies dealing with hazardous activities cannot escape liability (MC Mehta cases).
Polluter Pays Principle β Offenders must compensate for environmental damage (Vellore Citizens Forum).
Corporate Criminal Liability β Directors and managers can be personally liable (Kamal Nath case).
Public Nuisance & Health Hazard β IPC Sections 268, 277, 278 are frequently applied.
Preventive Measures β Courts often issue injunctions and environmental standards enforcement.
Public Trust Doctrine β Natural resources are held in trust for public; violation attracts criminal and civil liability.
πΉ VI. Summary Table: Landmark Environmental Cases
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) | 1987 | Absolute liability for hazardous industries |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium) | 1988 | Pollution control to protect cultural heritage |
| Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India | 1996 | Polluter pays principle; criminal & civil liability |
| M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath | 1997 | Corporate officers personally liable |
| Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India | 1996 | Strict liability for pollution; polluter pays |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India | 1996 | Criminal liability for deforestation and biodiversity loss |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution) | 1998 | Air pollution as public nuisance; regulatory compliance criminalized |
Conclusion:
Criminal liability for environmental damage is strict and wide-ranging in India.
Both individuals and corporations can be held accountable.
IPC Sections, Environmental Acts, and Wildlife Laws collectively ensure accountability.
Courts have emphasized polluter pays principle, absolute liability, and public trust doctrine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments