Case Law On Pollution Related Criminal Liability
⚖️ Overview: Pollution and Criminal Liability
Pollution-related criminal liability arises when individuals, companies, or public authorities violate environmental laws, causing air, water, or land pollution.
Key legal provisions in India include:
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 268 (public nuisance), 277 (pollution), 278 (negligent act likely to spread infection)
Criminal liability may include fines, imprisonment, or both.
Courts have interpreted these laws expansively to protect public health and the environment, balancing economic interests and social welfare.
🏛️ Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), 1988 AIR 1037
Facts:
The Ganges River was heavily polluted due to industrial effluents discharged by tanneries and other factories in Kanpur. M.C. Mehta filed a petition under Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting this pollution.
Issue:
Can industries and officials be held criminally liable for discharging untreated effluents into public water bodies?
Holding:
Supreme Court directed closure of tanneries that failed to comply with pollution norms.
Held that polluting industries are liable under the Water Act and IPC sections 268, 277, 278.
Introduced the principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries in India (later expanded in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India).
Significance:
Established criminal liability for environmental violations.
Strengthened judicial activism in pollution control.
Industries cannot escape liability by claiming economic hardship.
🏛️ Case 2: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), 1987 AIR 965
Facts:
A leak of Oleum gas from Shriram Food and Fertilizers factory in Delhi caused injuries and panic. The company was charged under IPC sections for negligent and hazardous industrial activity.
Issue:
Is the company criminally liable for accidents caused due to hazardous activity even if no direct intent to harm existed?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that industries engaged in hazardous activities are under absolute liability.
Liability arises regardless of fault or intention.
Court awarded compensation to victims and imposed penalties for safety negligence.
Significance:
Introduced absolute liability in industrial pollution cases, stricter than strict liability.
Set a precedent for criminal accountability for environmental hazards.
🏛️ Case 3: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
Facts:
Several chemical industries in Tamil Nadu dumped toxic waste, contaminating land and water and affecting villagers.
Issue:
Can industries be criminally liable for damage to public health and environment due to hazardous waste disposal?
Holding:
Supreme Court held industries absolutely liable for hazardous waste.
Ordered clean-up costs and compensation to affected communities.
Companies cannot escape liability even if they followed government licenses, as public welfare is paramount.
Significance:
Strengthened principle of absolute liability.
Recognized pollution as a criminally punishable act if public harm occurs.
Laid the foundation for environmental compensation jurisprudence in India.
🏛️ Case 4: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
Facts:
Residents in Bihar faced health hazards due to illegal disposal of industrial waste in their locality, contaminating air and water.
Issue:
Does environmental degradation affect the fundamental right to life under Article 21? Can violators be criminally prosecuted?
Holding:
Supreme Court held that pollution and environmental degradation violate the right to life.
Individuals and authorities causing environmental harm could be prosecuted under IPC and environmental laws.
Significance:
Recognized environmental protection as a fundamental right.
Criminal liability arises not only under specific environmental statutes but also under general criminal provisions.
🏛️ Case 5: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
Facts:
Tanneries in Vellore were discharging untreated effluents into agricultural lands and rivers, severely affecting local communities.
Issue:
How can courts ensure industries are criminally liable for environmental pollution?
Holding:
Supreme Court reinforced polluter pays principle.
Industries causing pollution are liable to pay compensation and can face criminal penalties.
Introduced the notion of sustainable development as a legal principle in Indian jurisprudence.
Significance:
Cemented the polluter pays principle in India.
Expanded scope for criminal prosecution under environmental laws.
Recognized environmental degradation as both civil and criminal wrong.
🧩 Key Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Case Example | Core Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute liability for hazardous industries | Oleum Gas Leak, Tamil Nadu Toxic Waste | Liability arises regardless of intent or negligence. |
| Criminal liability for environmental harm | M.C. Mehta (Ganga Pollution) | Pollution causing public harm can lead to criminal prosecution under IPC and environmental acts. |
| Right to life includes clean environment | Subhash Kumar v. Bihar | Environmental harm violates Article 21; violators can face criminal charges. |
| Polluter pays principle | Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum | Industries must compensate victims; criminal prosecution is complementary. |
| Judicial activism in environmental protection | All Mehta Cases | Courts play a proactive role in enforcing accountability and compliance. |
🧠 Conclusion
Indian courts have taken a proactive role in enforcing criminal liability for pollution:
Industries cannot hide behind licenses or profit motives.
Criminal sanctions and compensation serve as both deterrence and remedial measures.
Legal principles such as absolute liability, polluter pays, and fundamental right to life are central to environmental jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments