Criminal Liability For Environmental Pollution By Factories
1. Introduction: Environmental Pollution by Factories
Industrial and factory activities can cause pollution of air, water, soil, and noise, affecting public health, ecology, and sustainable development. Criminal liability arises when these activities violate environmental laws and regulations.
Forms of Pollution by Factories:
Air Pollution: Emission of harmful gases, particulate matter.
Water Pollution: Effluent discharge into rivers, lakes, or groundwater.
Noise Pollution: Excessive noise affecting nearby residents.
Hazardous Waste: Improper disposal of toxic or chemical waste.
Key Legal Principles:
Strict liability: Factory owners can be held liable even without intent if pollution occurs.
Public nuisance: Pollution affecting the general public can invoke IPC Sections 268–290.
Corporate liability: Companies as legal entities can be prosecuted, and officers responsible for operations can be personally liable.
Precautionary principle: Courts emphasize that industrial development cannot compromise environmental protection.
2. Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Provides a framework to prevent environmental damage and imposes penalties for violations.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Penalizes emission beyond prescribed standards.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Punishes unauthorized discharge of pollutants into water bodies.
IPC Sections 268, 269, 277, 278 – Covers public nuisance, negligent acts, and endangering life or health.
Factories Act, 1948 (Section 41, 44) – Addresses safety and handling of hazardous processes.
Key Elements of Criminal Liability:
Act or omission causing pollution.
Violation of statutory standards or consent conditions.
Knowledge or negligence by the management or officials.
Harm or potential harm to human health or environment.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988)
Facts:
Numerous tanneries and industrial units discharged untreated effluents into the Ganga river.
Prosecution Evidence:
Pollution levels exceeded permissible limits.
Scientific reports showed severe water contamination affecting health.
Judgment & Principle:
Supreme Court imposed strict liability on factories, ordering closure of units not treating effluent.
Principle: Industry cannot claim economic necessity to bypass environmental laws; polluters must bear the cost of pollution (polluter pays principle).
Case 2: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Facts:
Gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilizers factory in Delhi.
Public exposed to toxic fumes, several casualties reported.
Prosecution Issues:
Proving negligence or failure to follow safety regulations.
Judgment & Principle:
Supreme Court emphasized absolute liability for hazardous industries.
Principle: For hazardous industrial activity, no exception of “act of God” or employee negligence; the enterprise is fully liable for harm.
Case 3: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Leather tanneries in Vellore discharged untreated effluent into river Palar.
Prosecution Evidence:
River contamination confirmed; threat to drinking water and agriculture.
Judgment & Principle:
Court applied precautionary and polluter pays principles.
Principle: Courts can enforce environmental standards and impose penalties on factories; liability is both civil and criminal.
Case 4: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri Pesticide Case, 1996)
Facts:
Pesticide manufacturing units dumped toxic waste in Bichhri village.
Locals suffered health hazards and soil contamination.
Judgment & Principle:
Court imposed compensation and criminal liability on factory owners.
Principle: Companies can be prosecuted for public nuisance and environmental pollution under IPC Sections 268, 269, 270.
Case 5: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts:
Pollution from coal and iron industries causing groundwater contamination and respiratory diseases.
Judgment & Principle:
Supreme Court recognized right to clean environment as part of right to life under Article 21.
Principle: Industrial pollution resulting in health risks can trigger criminal liability for negligence and public nuisance.
Case 6: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest and Industrial Pollution, 2002)
Facts:
Industrial logging and factory effluents damaged forests and ecology.
Judgment & Principle:
Court mandated strict adherence to environmental norms and enforcement against violators.
Principle: Liability is imposed on industries for ecological damage; preventive and punitive measures enforced.
4. Key Takeaways
Factories and industrial units have a high degree of legal responsibility to prevent pollution.
Strict liability applies to hazardous and polluting industries; intent is not always required.
Criminal liability can be imposed under IPC, environmental statutes, and public nuisance laws.
Courts have reinforced the “polluter pays” principle, emphasizing accountability and remediation.
Judicial activism in India has expanded environmental protection, linking public health with industrial responsibility.
RELATED Blog
comments