Criminal Liability For Environmental Harm Caused By Corporations
1. Concept of Corporate Criminal Liability for Environmental Harm
Definition
Corporate criminal liability refers to the legal responsibility of a corporation (a legal person) for crimes committed by its directors, employees, or agents. When corporations engage in acts or omissions that cause environmental degradation—such as pollution, illegal dumping, or destruction of ecosystems—they may be held criminally liable under environmental laws.
Legal Basis
The principle arises from:
Environmental protection statutes (e.g., Environment Protection Act, Water Act, Air Act, Hazardous Waste Rules)
General penal provisions (e.g., public nuisance, negligence, endangerment of life)
International conventions (e.g., Stockholm Conference, Rio Declaration, Paris Agreement—reflected in domestic law)
Corporate Personality and Liability
Traditionally, corporations could not be held criminally liable because they lack a physical mind or intent (“mens rea”). However, modern jurisprudence accepts that:
The “directing mind and will” (managers, directors) represent the corporation.
Mens rea can be imputed to the corporation through these individuals.
Vicarious liability and strict liability doctrines apply for environmental offences.
2. Key Doctrines Relevant to Environmental Crime
Strict Liability:
A company is liable regardless of intent or negligence if environmental damage occurs (e.g., pollution beyond permitted limits).
Absolute Liability:
Established in India (post-Oleum Gas Leak), this doctrine removes exceptions such as “act of God” or “third party intervention.”
Vicarious Liability:
The corporation is liable for acts of its employees committed in the course of business.
Corporate Manslaughter or Negligence:
When environmental harm leads to death or serious injury, charges may include corporate manslaughter or culpable homicide.
3. Important Case Laws
Below are detailed discussions of key cases illustrating corporate criminal liability for environmental harm:
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), 1987 SCR (1) 819 – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
In December 1985, oleum gas leaked from a unit of Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries in Delhi, causing death and injuries to nearby residents. The issue was whether the enterprise could be held liable even without negligence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, evolved the doctrine of absolute liability:
Any enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results.
The company cannot escape liability even if it took reasonable care.
Significance:
Introduced absolute liability in Indian environmental jurisprudence.
Distinguished from the English “strict liability” (Rylands v. Fletcher).
The corporation was held criminally and civilly liable.
Case 2: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case), 1989 AIR 1826
Facts:
In December 1984, leakage of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal caused thousands of deaths and injuries.
Issues:
Whether a multinational corporation can be held criminally liable for environmental catastrophe.
The scope of compensation and jurisdiction of Indian courts.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held Union Carbide liable and approved a settlement of US $470 million for victims. Though initially civil in nature, criminal proceedings were also initiated for negligence and culpable homicide.
Significance:
Landmark for corporate criminal responsibility in large-scale environmental disasters.
Strengthened the idea that corporate entities cannot hide behind subsidiaries.
Case 3: R v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd. (2010) EWCA Crim 2020 – United Kingdom
Facts:
Thames Water Utilities discharged untreated sewage into rivers, causing serious environmental harm and affecting aquatic life.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal upheld a substantial fine (£500,000), affirming that:
Corporations are strictly liable for pollution offences under the UK Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Water Resources Act 1991.
The company’s financial capacity is relevant in determining fines (should be high enough to deter).
Significance:
Reinforced corporate accountability.
Demonstrated that environmental crimes attract severe financial penalties.
Case 4: United States v. Exxon Shipping Co. (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Case), 1991
Facts:
In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled over 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The spill devastated marine life and coastal communities.
Judgment:
Exxon was found guilty of:
Violations under the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws.
Ordered to pay $150 million criminal fine, part of which was remitted for environmental restoration.
Significance:
Demonstrated U.S. commitment to criminally penalize corporate polluters.
Established precedents for environmental clean-up liability under criminal law.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. K.K. Gupta (2000 Cri LJ 2583) – India
Facts:
A company was found discharging untreated effluents into a river, violating the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that:
The company and its directors could be prosecuted jointly.
Section 47 of the Water Act makes both the corporation and responsible persons criminally liable.
Significance:
Affirmed that directors cannot escape liability by blaming subordinates.
Reinforced personal accountability of corporate officers.
Case 6: United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E Pipeline Explosion Case), 2016
Facts:
PG&E was charged with multiple counts of violating pipeline safety regulations after a 2010 explosion in San Bruno, California, killing eight people and damaging the environment.
Judgment:
PG&E was convicted on five felony counts of violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and obstructing an investigation. Heavy fines and probation were imposed.
Significance:
Illustrates corporate criminal liability for negligence leading to environmental and human harm.
Strengthened enforcement of environmental safety compliance.
4. Summary of Legal Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Illustrative Case | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute Liability | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | No exceptions for hazardous industries |
| Corporate Responsibility | Union Carbide v. Union of India | MNCs accountable in local jurisdictions |
| Strict Liability under Statute | R v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd. | Breach of statutory duty = criminal liability |
| Negligence and Cleanup Duty | Exxon Valdez | Criminal penalties and restoration obligations |
| Director Accountability | State of Maharashtra v. K.K. Gupta | Directors personally liable under environmental laws |
| Safety Negligence = Criminal Conduct | U.S. v. PG&E | Criminal negligence in environmental management punished |
5. Conclusion
Corporate criminal liability for environmental harm is now a well-established principle globally. Courts have moved beyond traditional barriers of mens rea and corporate personhood to ensure:
Deterrence of corporate negligence,
Compensation and restoration for victims and ecosystems, and
Accountability of both corporations and responsible officials.
The jurisprudence from India, the UK, and the U.S. collectively demonstrates a universal shift from leniency to strict accountability for environmental crimes committed by corporations.
RELATED Blog
comments