Environmental Crimes: Illegal Waste, Pollution, Wildlife Protection
🌿 1. Understanding Environmental Crimes
Environmental crimes are acts that directly harm the environment or violate environmental laws designed to protect natural resources, human health, and wildlife.
They can be divided broadly into:
Pollution-related crimes – Industrial discharge, air/water pollution, and hazardous waste dumping.
Illegal waste disposal – Improper handling of toxic, medical, or industrial waste.
Wildlife crimes – Poaching, smuggling of endangered species, illegal logging, and trade in wildlife parts.
Violation of environmental permits and standards – Ignoring conditions under environmental clearances.
These crimes are prosecuted under environmental laws such as:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (India)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Hazardous Waste Management Rules
⚖️ 2. Key Case Laws and Judicial Decisions
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), 1986
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Leakage of oleum gas from Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. in Delhi, causing harm to human health.
Legal Question: Can enterprises engaged in hazardous industries be held absolutely liable for harm caused to people and the environment?
Judgment & Principles:
The Court introduced the “Absolute Liability Principle”, holding that an enterprise engaged in hazardous activities owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure that no harm results from its operations.
Unlike the old “strict liability” (Rylands v. Fletcher), the court ruled that no exceptions (like acts of God or third-party fault) would apply.
The company was held liable and directed to compensate victims and adopt preventive measures.
Significance:
This case became a cornerstone for India’s environmental jurisprudence and corporate responsibility in pollution cases.
Case 2: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Pollution caused by tanneries discharging untreated effluents into the Palar River in Tamil Nadu.
Judgment & Principles:
The Court invoked the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle.”
It directed closure of polluting tanneries and required them to set up effluent treatment plants.
The Court held that environmental protection is an essential part of Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
Significance:
It established that economic development cannot come at the cost of environmental degradation — a balance between ecology and development was necessary.
Case 3: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Chemical industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, discharged toxic waste, contaminating groundwater and agricultural lands.
Judgment:
The industries were held absolutely liable for pollution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Court applied the Polluter Pays Principle, ordering the companies to pay the cost of remediation and compensate affected villagers.
Significance:
This case reinforced the idea that polluters must bear the cost of restoring the environment — a powerful deterrent against industrial negligence.
Case 4: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Sterlite Industries (a subsidiary of Vedanta) was accused of air and water pollution in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment:
The Court imposed a fine of ₹100 crore on the company for violating environmental laws.
It held that even if the plant had a valid license, it must strictly adhere to environmental standards.
The Court emphasized that economic activity cannot compromise the right to a clean environment.
Significance:
The case highlighted corporate accountability and the need for sustainable industrial operations.
Case 5: Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., 2014
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Legality of the bull-taming sport Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bull races in Maharashtra.
Judgment:
The Court held that these practices violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the fundamental duty to show compassion to living creatures (Article 51A(g)).
It recognized animal welfare as part of environmental justice and the right to life.
Significance:
The judgment extended environmental jurisprudence to animal rights and biodiversity protection, linking it with the concept of ecological balance.
Case 6: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest Conservation Case), ongoing since 1995
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Large-scale deforestation and encroachment on forest land across India.
Judgment & Orders:
The Court expanded the definition of “forest” to include all areas recorded as forest, regardless of ownership.
It established the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to monitor forest conservation.
All non-forest activities in forest areas were prohibited without prior approval from the central government.
Significance:
This ongoing case has led to nationwide forest protection measures and the creation of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management Authority (CAMPA).
Case 7: U.S. v. Hayes International Corporation (United States, 1982)
Jurisdiction: U.S. Federal Court
Issue: Illegal disposal of hazardous waste without a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Judgment:
The company was found guilty of criminally negligent handling of hazardous waste.
The Court imposed heavy fines and prison terms on responsible officers.
Significance:
This was one of the first U.S. cases where a corporation faced criminal penalties for environmental crimes, reinforcing the seriousness of illegal waste disposal.
🌎 3. Broader Legal Principles Evolved
Polluter Pays Principle:
Polluters are responsible for compensating victims and restoring the environment.
Precautionary Principle:
Lack of full scientific certainty should not delay preventive measures when there is a risk of serious environmental harm.
Sustainable Development:
Development should meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations.
Public Trust Doctrine:
The government acts as a trustee of natural resources and must protect them for public use.
📘 Conclusion
Environmental crimes such as illegal waste disposal, pollution, and wildlife violations pose a serious threat to ecosystems and public health. Courts, especially in India, have taken a proactive role in evolving environmental jurisprudence that balances industrial progress with ecological integrity.
These landmark cases demonstrate how the judiciary has become a powerful guardian of the environment, ensuring that no one — not even the state — can act irresponsibly toward nature.
RELATED Blog
comments