Prosecution Of Environmental Crimes Including River Pollution, Deforestation, And Illegal Mining
1. Legal Framework for Environmental Crimes in India
Environmental crimes in India are primarily addressed under:
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 21 – Right to life includes the right to a healthy environment.
Article 48A – Directive for the State to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g) – Fundamental duty of citizens to protect natural resources.
Statutory Provisions:
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Pollution of rivers, streams, and water bodies.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Industrial air pollution.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Umbrella law for environmental protection.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Prohibits deforestation without approval.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Sections like 268 (public nuisance), 278 (making atmosphere noxious), 431 (mischief by fire or hazardous act).
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Illegal mining regulation.
Criminal Liability:
Punishment includes imprisonment, fines, and restitution for environmental damage.
The principle of strict liability often applies: offenders cannot claim ignorance.
2. Judicial Approach and Principles
Precautionary Principle: Courts expect industries and developers to take preventive measures to avoid environmental harm.
Polluter Pays Principle: Offenders must bear costs of environmental restoration.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Courts often initiate cases suo motu to enforce environmental laws.
Strict Enforcement of Statutes: Courts enforce compliance with environmental clearances and approvals.
3. Important Case Laws
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1988) 1 SCC 471
Facts:
Industries in Kanpur were discharging untreated effluents into the Ganga.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered:
Closure of polluting industries until compliance with environmental standards.
Compensation for environmental damage.
Court emphasized polluter pays principle and strict liability.
Principle:
Environmental law enforcement can override commercial interests.
Compensation and remediation are integral to criminal and civil liability.
Case 2: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 353 (Forest Conservation Case)
Facts:
Large-scale deforestation in Western Ghats for development.
Held:
Supreme Court directed:
Ban on tree felling without central approval.
Mandatory environmental clearance for projects affecting forests.
Court established legal precedent for criminal liability under Forest Conservation Act.
Principle:
Unauthorized deforestation is punishable with fines and imprisonment.
Courts use PILs to enforce forest protection.
Case 3: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri Industrial Pollution Case) (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts:
Chemical industries in Rajasthan dumped hazardous waste in the open.
Held:
Supreme Court imposed:
Environmental liability on industries.
Compensation of ₹50 lakh for restoration of land and water.
Introduced strict liability for hazardous industries.
Principle:
Hazardous industries cannot escape liability even without direct intent.
Compensation includes both remediation and punitive measures.
Case 4: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 (Taj Trapezium Case)
Facts:
Industries near Agra were emitting pollutants affecting the Taj Mahal.
Held:
Court ordered:
Closure of industries violating environmental norms.
Compensation for environmental damage.
Shift of polluting industries outside the Taj Trapezium Zone.
Principle:
Courts can balance environmental protection against industrial activity.
Criminal prosecution is supported where clear statutory violations occur.
Case 5: Goa Foundation v. Union of India (Illegal Mining Case) (2012) 6 SCC 590
Facts:
Rampant illegal iron ore mining in Goa causing river pollution and ecological degradation.
Held:
Supreme Court ordered:
Suspension of illegal mining operations.
Payment of environmental compensation by mining companies.
Directed state machinery to prosecute offenders under Mines & Minerals Act.
Principle:
Illegal mining constitutes criminal offense with civil liability for environmental restoration.
Judicial review can halt destructive activities pending compliance.
Case 6: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664
Facts:
Alleged environmental and human displacement due to Sardar Sarovar Dam.
Held:
Court recognized the need for:
Environmental impact assessments.
Compensation to displaced persons.
Set precedent for judicial oversight on large projects.
Principle:
Environmental crime extends to failure of government to protect public resources.
Courts ensure both preventive and compensatory justice.
Case 7: Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (1999) 2 SCC 440
Facts:
Open dumping of solid waste in Mumbai causing public health hazards.
Held:
Court directed:
Proper waste management systems.
Municipal authorities liable for negligence.
Introduced environmental governance principles for cities.
Principle:
Negligence by public authorities is actionable under environmental laws.
Courts can award compensation to affected communities.
4. Key Judicial Principles from These Cases
Precautionary Principle: Preventive measures are mandated even before harm occurs.
Polluter Pays Principle: Offenders must pay for restoration of environment and affected communities.
Strict Liability: Intent is not always required; violation of environmental norms triggers criminal/civil liability.
Judicial Oversight in Public Interest: Courts actively monitor compliance with environmental laws through PILs.
Integration of Criminal and Civil Remedies: Prosecution may include imprisonment, fines, and restitution.
Compensation as Integral: Courts award compensation for health, livelihood, land restoration, and ecosystem recovery.
5. Conclusion
Environmental crime prosecution in India demonstrates:
Strong judicial activism to protect natural resources.
Criminal liability for individuals and corporations violating statutory norms.
Mandatory compensation to affected communities as part of judicial orders.
Enforcement often relies on PILs and judicial review, making courts a key actor in environmental protection.
RELATED Blog
comments