Criminal Liability Under Environment Protection Act
🔍 1. Introduction
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a comprehensive legislation enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984). It empowers the Central Government to take all necessary measures for the protection and improvement of the environment.
📌 Key Objectives:
To protect and improve the environment.
To prevent hazards to human beings, living creatures, and property.
To empower the government to take strict actions against violators.
⚖️ 2. Criminal Liability under the EPA
The EPA contains several penal provisions to impose criminal liability on individuals, companies, or institutions violating environmental norms.
✅ Important Penal Provisions:
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 15 | General penalty for contravention of EPA or rules, orders, directions under it. Punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine up to ₹1 lakh, or both. If continued, additional fine and extended imprisonment possible. |
| Section 16 | Penalty for offences committed by companies. Both the company and the responsible persons (e.g., directors, managers) may be held liable. |
| Section 17 | Offences by government departments—the Head of the Department can be held liable. |
| Section 19 | No court shall take cognizance unless there is a complaint by the Central Government or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given a 60-day notice. |
🧾 3. Key Case Laws on Criminal Liability under EPA
✅ Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case)
Citation: (1997) 2 SCC 353
Facts: Industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone were emitting harmful pollutants, damaging the Taj Mahal.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed the closure or relocation of polluting industries.
It recognized criminal liability under EPA for violating pollution control norms.
Significance:
Set precedent for criminal action under Sections 15 and 16 of EPA against industries.
Expanded judicial enforcement of environmental liability.
✅ Case 2: Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647
Facts: Tannery industries in Tamil Nadu were polluting water bodies with untreated effluents.
Held:
Court enforced “Polluter Pays” principle.
Directed prosecution under EPA and Water Act.
Significance:
Reiterated that criminal prosecution is valid even when pollution has socio-economic roots.
Focused on corporate criminal liability under Section 16.
✅ Case 3: A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu
Citation: (1999) 2 SCC 718
Facts: Issue involved setting up hazardous industries near drinking water reservoirs.
Held:
Stressed precautionary principle and invoked EPA for criminal responsibility.
Directed stringent penal action under Section 15.
Significance:
Reinforced the need for scientific evaluation before allowing industrial activity.
Recognized courts’ power to intervene before harm occurs.
✅ Case 4: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
Citation: (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts: Chemical industries in Rajasthan caused large-scale land and water pollution.
Held:
Ordered criminal prosecution under EPA and directed recovery of environmental damages.
Upheld liability of companies and directors.
Significance:
One of the first cases where criminal liability under EPA was enforced with compensation recovery.
Extended civil and criminal remedies concurrently.
✅ Case 5: K.M. Chinnappa v. Union of India (Nagarhole Case)
Citation: (2002) 10 SCC 606
Facts: Issue of illegal mining and forest diversion in the Nagarhole National Park.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled against such mining activities.
Directed penal action under EPA and Forest Conservation Act.
Significance:
Extended the scope of criminal liability to ecological damage, not just pollution.
✅ Case 6: Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2001) 2 SCC 97
Facts: Illegal construction near coastal zone violating CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) notification under EPA.
Held:
Directed demolition of structures.
Ordered prosecution of violators under EPA.
Significance:
Reinforced the binding nature of EPA notifications, with criminal consequences.
🔍 4. Nature of Criminal Liability under EPA
✅ Strict Liability and Corporate Liability
No requirement to prove mens rea (criminal intent).
Section 16 imposes liability on directors/managers if the offence is committed with their consent, connivance or negligence.
✅ Vicarious Liability
Companies and individuals can both be prosecuted.
Defence: Individual must prove due diligence and lack of knowledge.
⚠️ 5. Challenges in Enforcement
Delay in prosecution and trial of environmental offences.
Lack of expertise among police and courts in environmental matters.
Rare convictions due to technical evidence challenges.
Weak implementation by pollution control boards.
📌 6. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Key Legal Outcome |
|---|---|
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) | Criminal liability for industrial pollution near Taj Mahal |
| Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996) | Prosecution of tanneries under EPA |
| A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Nayudu (1999) | Emphasized precaution and criminal action |
| Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996) | Criminal + compensation liability |
| K.M. Chinnappa v. Union of India (2002) | Prosecution for forest and ecological damage |
| Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings (2001) | Coastal zone violations punished under EPA |
✅ 7. Conclusion
The Environment Protection Act, 1986 provides a strong framework for criminal prosecution of environmental offenders. Through landmark judgments, the Indian judiciary has:
Expanded the scope of liability to include corporate executives.
Upheld strict and vicarious liability.
Reinforced the Polluter Pays and Precautionary principles.
Shown willingness to order prosecution and compensation.
However, enforcement remains a challenge and calls for stronger investigation, prosecution, and environmental judicial mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments