Environmental Crimes And Pollution Offenses
🌍 Environmental Crimes and Pollution Offenses: Detailed Explanation
Meaning
Environmental crimes are illegal acts that directly harm the environment. These include pollution offenses, illegal dumping of waste, poaching, illegal logging, trade in endangered species, and violations of environmental regulations.
Pollution offenses refer specifically to actions that contaminate air, water, or soil, endangering human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. These crimes violate laws meant to ensure sustainable development and ecological balance.
Major Types of Environmental Crimes
Water Pollution – Discharge of untreated industrial effluents or sewage into water bodies.
Air Pollution – Emission of toxic gases and particulate matter beyond prescribed limits.
Soil Pollution – Dumping of hazardous waste and chemicals on land.
Wildlife Crimes – Illegal hunting or trade in endangered species.
Deforestation and Illegal Mining – Exploitation of natural resources without authorization.
Noise Pollution – Excessive noise affecting human health and well-being.
Legal Framework in India
Environmental protection is governed by several statutes, such as:
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Constitutional provisions also play a key role:
Article 21 – Right to a healthy environment as part of Right to Life.
Article 48A – Duty of the State to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g) – Fundamental duty of citizens to protect the environment.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086
Facts:
After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984), another gas leak occurred from Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi, releasing oleum gas and causing the death of an advocate and harm to several others.
Issues:
Whether the enterprise could be held liable for harm caused by a hazardous activity.
Whether strict liability or a more stringent standard should apply.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court introduced the principle of “Absolute Liability.”
Unlike the English doctrine of “Strict Liability” from Rylands v. Fletcher, the Indian version removed exceptions.
If an enterprise engages in hazardous activities and harm results, it is absolutely liable to compensate victims — no defense allowed.
Significance:
Strengthened environmental accountability of industries.
Became the foundation of India’s environmental jurisprudence.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1115
Facts:
The petitioner sought action against industries polluting the River Ganga by discharging untreated waste and effluents.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed:
Closure of tanneries and industries discharging untreated effluents.
Installation of effluent treatment plants (ETPs).
Regular monitoring by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
Principle:
This case enforced the “Polluter Pays Principle”, holding that polluters must bear the cost of preventing and remedying pollution.
Significance:
Strengthened water pollution control.
Inspired numerous cleanup initiatives for Indian rivers.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Citation: (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts:
Several chemical industries in Bichhri village, Udaipur, Rajasthan, discharged toxic sludge into open land and water sources, severely contaminating the environment and affecting villagers’ health.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the industries absolutely liable under the “Polluter Pays Principle.”
It ordered them to compensate affected people and restore the environment.
Principle:
The case reinforced both Absolute Liability and Polluter Pays Principle.
Significance:
First case where the court explicitly ordered environmental restoration.
Set a precedent for environmental compensation and remediation.
4. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647
Facts:
Tanneries in Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents into agricultural lands and water bodies, causing large-scale pollution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Industries must install treatment plants.
The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are part of Indian environmental law.
Principle Established:
Precautionary Principle – Prevent damage before it occurs, even without full scientific certainty.
Polluter Pays Principle – Polluters must pay for cleanup and restoration.
Significance:
Recognized these principles as part of domestic law under Article 21.
Strengthened judicial activism in environmental matters.
5. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999)
Citation: (1999) 2 SCC 718
Facts:
A chemical industry sought consent to operate near two reservoirs in Andhra Pradesh. The Pollution Control Board refused consent, citing risk to drinking water sources.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the Board’s decision, emphasizing:
Environmental decisions require scientific expertise and caution.
The Precautionary Principle must guide environmental governance.
Significance:
Stressed the role of environmental expertise in judicial and administrative decision-making.
Laid the foundation for establishing specialized environmental courts (later realized in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010).
🌱 Conclusion
Environmental crimes and pollution offenses pose serious threats to ecological balance, public health, and sustainable development. Indian jurisprudence, through proactive judicial intervention, has evolved key doctrines such as:
Absolute Liability
Polluter Pays Principle
Precautionary Principle
Public Trust Doctrine
These principles collectively ensure accountability, prevention, and compensation for environmental harm — forming the cornerstone of modern environmental law enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments