Environmental Crime Enforcement
🌍 Environmental Crime Enforcement – Overview
Environmental crimes include illegal acts that directly harm the environment, such as:
Illegal mining or deforestation
Air, water, or noise pollution
Wildlife poaching and trafficking
Improper industrial waste disposal
Violations of environmental clearance or norms
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal (NGT), have used both civil and criminal law tools to enforce environmental standards, often invoking Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Cases on Environmental Crime Enforcement
Here are six detailed cases showing how courts have interpreted and enforced environmental law against violators:
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1115
Facts: Tanneries were polluting the Ganga river by discharging untreated waste.
Issue: Whether industrial units can be allowed to operate while polluting a public water source.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that industries must stop operations unless they install treatment plants.
Introduced the “Polluter Pays” principle.
Treated pollution as a public nuisance and enforced strict liability.
Significance:
Pioneered environmental crime accountability.
Treated pollution as an offence affecting the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
Facts: Industrial waste from tanneries in Tamil Nadu caused water and soil pollution.
Issue: Enforcement of environmental safeguards against industrial units.
Judgment:
The Court applied both Polluter Pays and Precautionary Principles.
Held the State liable for failing to prevent damage.
Ordered the creation of a green fund for environmental restoration.
Significance:
Recognized environmental crimes as constitutional violations.
Encouraged corporate criminal liability.
3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267
Facts: Illegal deforestation and timber operations in reserved forests.
Issue: Protection of forest resources and enforcement of forest laws.
Judgment:
Banned all non-permitted logging in forests.
Court expanded the meaning of “forest” to include all areas fulfilling ecological functions.
Ordered strict prosecution of illegal operators.
Significance:
Strengthened criminal enforcement under Forest Conservation Act.
Treated illegal deforestation as ecological crime.
4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446
Facts: Chemical industries in Rajasthan polluted soil and groundwater.
Issue: Responsibility for long-term environmental damage.
Judgment:
Directed companies to pay hefty compensation and clean-up costs.
Reiterated absolute liability for inherently dangerous industries.
Enforcement of Section 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of environmental torts as criminally enforceable.
Allowed environmental authorities to act against polluters even without formal trials.
5. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 2013 (Madras HC)
Facts: Allegations of toxic gas leak from a copper plant causing environmental and health damage.
Issue: Whether the industry violated air pollution norms and endangered public safety.
Judgment:
The High Court ordered the closure of the plant.
Cited repeated environmental violations, including non-compliance with consent conditions.
Treated continued operation as a criminal act endangering life.
Significance:
Reinforced corporate criminal responsibility.
Showed courts’ willingness to impose harsh penalties for environmental offences.
6. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622
Facts: Open drains and sewage in a locality led to severe public health concerns.
Issue: Could a municipality be compelled to act under criminal nuisance provisions?
Judgment:
Supreme Court held the municipality responsible under Section 133 CrPC.
Described public nuisance (like open sewage) as a criminal wrong.
Stated that financial limitations are no excuse for failure to ensure sanitation.
Significance:
Treated municipal negligence as criminally actionable.
Early example of using criminal procedure for environmental enforcement.
🔎 Key Principles Derived from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Polluter Pays | The polluting entity must bear the cost of cleaning and damage |
| Precautionary Principle | Action must be taken to prevent harm even if scientific certainty is not complete |
| Absolute Liability | Industries engaged in hazardous activities are strictly liable for any damage |
| Right to a Clean Environment | Recognized as part of Right to Life under Article 21 |
| Criminal Nuisance | Public health/environmental harm can be treated as criminal nuisance under CrPC |
🧭 Conclusion
Environmental crime enforcement in India has evolved into a rights-based, principle-driven approach. Courts have:
Treated environmental harm as criminally actionable, not just civil.
Ordered compensation, closures, and prosecution of violators.
Used constitutional mandates to expand the scope of enforcement.
Emphasized government duty and corporate accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments