Environmental Pollution And Criminal Liability
🔷 I. Overview: Environmental Pollution and Criminal Liability
Environmental pollution refers to the introduction of harmful substances or contaminants into the environment causing adverse effects to humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems.
Criminal liability for environmental pollution arises when such pollution occurs due to negligence, violation of laws, or deliberate acts, attracting penal provisions in statutes like:
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Courts have increasingly recognized environmental pollution as a serious offence affecting public health and sustainable development, holding individuals, corporations, and government authorities criminally liable.
🔷 II. Statutory Provisions for Criminal Liability
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
Section 15 & 16 provide penalties for environmental pollution, including imprisonment and fines.
Water Act, 1974 & Air Act, 1981:
Section 31 provides for penalties for contravening provisions regarding pollution.
IPC Sections:
Section 268: Public nuisance (pollution can be public nuisance)
Section 276: Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life
Section 278: Making atmosphere noxious to health
Other laws:
Wildlife Protection Act, Hazardous Waste Rules, Forest Conservation Act, etc.
🔷 III. Important Case Laws on Environmental Pollution and Criminal Liability
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395
Facts:
Oleum gas leaked from Shriram Industries, causing danger to life.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that polluter pays principle applies.
Liability for environmental pollution can be criminal or civil.
Industries must take utmost care; failure to do so attracts strict liability.
Court imposed punitive fines and compensation on the polluter.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing strict liability for hazardous industries.
Foundation of environmental jurisprudence in India.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 161 (Taj Trapezium Case)
Facts:
Industries around the Taj Mahal were polluting air, damaging the monument.
Held:
The Court ordered closure or relocation of polluting industries.
Emphasized the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Directed implementation of pollution control norms strictly.
Significance:
Affirmed environmental protection as part of fundamental rights.
Introduced strict judicial activism to curb industrial pollution.
3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
Facts:
Tanneries in Vellore discharged untreated effluents polluting water bodies.
Held:
Court applied precautionary principle and polluter pays principle.
Industries were held liable for environmental damages.
Directed payment of compensation to affected persons.
Significance:
Reinforced principles of sustainable development.
Pioneered environmental compensation in India.
4. Ganga Pollution Case – M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471
Facts:
The Ganga river was heavily polluted due to untreated sewage and industrial effluents.
Held:
The Supreme Court ordered states to establish pollution control boards.
Directed closing of polluting units failing to comply.
Held government authorities accountable for enforcement failure.
Significance:
Established environmental regulatory framework.
Demonstrated courts’ willingness to impose criminal liability for pollution.
5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts:
Hazardous waste dumping by chemical industries in Rajasthan led to serious pollution.
Held:
The Court held industries liable for criminal prosecution under Environment Protection Act.
Imposed heavy fines and ordered compensation to victims.
Emphasized strict enforcement of hazardous waste management laws.
Significance:
Clarified that environmental offences attract criminal sanctions.
Encouraged stringent implementation of pollution laws.
6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 267
Facts:
Illegal deforestation and degradation of forests.
Held:
The Court recognized environmental protection as a public duty.
Directed criminal action against those violating forest laws.
Established forest conservation as critical to environmental protection.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of criminal liability to forest-related environmental offences.
7. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. (1985) 3 SCC 374
Facts:
Excessive mining and its impact on ecology and environment.
Held:
The Court held illegal mining and pollution as environmental offences.
Directed strict control of mining activities to prevent pollution.
Penalized violators under relevant criminal provisions.
Significance:
Reinforced the need for environmental impact assessments.
Recognized environmental offences as criminal acts.
8. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
Facts:
Groundwater pollution by industrial effluents.
Held:
The Court held that pollution of groundwater is a public nuisance.
Directed cessation of polluting activities.
Suggested criminal prosecution for persistent violations.
Significance:
Confirmed pollution as a public nuisance under IPC.
Supported criminal prosecution to protect natural resources.
🔷 IV. Principles Established by Courts in Environmental Pollution Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Polluter Pays Principle | Polluter is responsible for costs of pollution. |
| Precautionary Principle | Prevent harm even if scientific certainty is lacking. |
| Strict Liability | No fault or negligence needed to impose liability. |
| Public Nuisance | Pollution affecting public is a criminal offence. |
| Right to Clean Environment | Protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Sustainable Development | Development without environmental harm. |
🔷 V. Conclusion
Environmental pollution offences attract serious criminal liability under Indian law. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in:
Enforcing stringent penalties.
Protecting public health and natural resources.
Imposing duties on industries and government authorities.
Ensuring environmental justice through active court interventions.
Thus, pollution is not only a civil wrong but a criminal offence punishable by law, emphasizing sustainable development and protection of the environment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments