Criminal Liability For Large-Scale Environmental Destruction Projects

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

I. Understanding Criminal Liability for Environmental Destruction

1. Meaning

Criminal liability for environmental destruction refers to holding individuals, corporations, or government officials criminally responsible for actions that cause severe, widespread, or long-term damage to the environment — such as deforestation, industrial pollution, oil spills, or illegal mining.

Such acts often violate environmental protection statutes and may also constitute offenses under general criminal law, such as public nuisance, negligence, or endangering life.

2. Legal Basis

In India:

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

Indian Penal Code (Sections 268, 269, 277, 278, 284, 290, 426, etc.)

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Internationally:

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) – war crimes including environmental damage)

UN Framework Conventions and Environmental Protocols

Criminal liability often attaches when intention, knowledge, or gross negligence is proven in environmental harm.

II. Major Case Laws

Let’s discuss five landmark cases — three Indian and two international — illustrating how courts have treated large-scale environmental destruction.

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 965

Facts:
An oleum gas leak occurred from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries in Delhi, causing the death of a lawyer and affecting many residents.

Issue:
Whether the company could be held criminally liable for the leak, and what standard of liability should apply.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court of India established the doctrine of “Absolute Liability” for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.

Unlike strict liability (which allows exceptions), absolute liability has no exceptions — if harm occurs, the enterprise is fully liable.

The Court emphasized that corporations could face criminal and civil penalties for environmental harm.

Significance:
This case set a precedent for criminal prosecution of corporations for environmental disasters, paving the way for later criminal charges in industrial pollution cases.

2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Citation: (1996) 3 SCC 212

Facts:
Several chemical industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, were discharging toxic sludge into local streams and soil, contaminating groundwater and causing widespread damage to human and animal health.

Issue:
Could these industries be held liable for large-scale environmental destruction, and could the “polluter pays” principle be enforced?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held the companies strictly and criminally liable under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

It reaffirmed the Polluter Pays Principle, stating that industries must not only pay compensation but also bear the cost of restoring the damaged environment.

The Court directed recovery of compensation and cleanup costs.

Significance:
This case firmly embedded criminal accountability and economic deterrence in Indian environmental jurisprudence.

3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

Citation: (1996) 5 SCC 647

Facts:
Tanneries in Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents into agricultural lands and rivers, severely polluting the Palar River.

Issue:
Whether these industries could continue operations despite their environmental violations.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the tanneries’ actions violated Articles 21, 47, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution (Right to Life and environmental duties).

Ordered the closure of non-compliant tanneries and payment of compensation.

Recognized the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle as essential parts of Indian environmental law.

Significance:
Though primarily civil in nature, the judgment established a foundation for criminal sanctions under environmental statutes against repeat or reckless offenders.

4. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case — Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989–1992)

Citation: AIR 1992 SC 248

Facts:
A catastrophic gas leak at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal (1984) killed over 3,000 people and injured thousands more.

Issue:
Could executives and the corporation be held criminally responsible for the disaster?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court initially approved a settlement of USD 470 million, but the criminal proceedings against company officials continued.

Warren Anderson (UCC Chairman) and others were charged under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence).

Indian courts emphasized that multinational corporations can face criminal prosecution for large-scale environmental harm and loss of life.

Significance:
This remains the most prominent example of criminal liability for an environmental catastrophe in India, highlighting the inadequacy of mere compensation in such cases.

5. International Case: The Trail Smelter Arbitration (USA v. Canada, 1941)

Citation: 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1941)

Facts:
A smelter in Trail, British Columbia, released sulfur dioxide fumes that crossed into Washington State, USA, damaging forests and farms.

Issue:
Whether Canada was internationally liable for transboundary environmental harm caused by its industries.

Judgment:

The tribunal held Canada responsible for the damage.

Established that “no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury to the territory of another State.”

Though not a domestic criminal case, it laid the foundation for state-level liability for environmental destruction and influenced the development of international environmental criminal law.

Significance:
Trail Smelter became the cornerstone for the principle of State Responsibility for Environmental Harm, which later inspired criminalization of ecocide under international law proposals.

III. Emerging Concept — Ecocide as an International Crime

The term “ecocide” refers to massive environmental destruction caused intentionally or recklessly, such as deforestation of the Amazon or oil spills in the Niger Delta.
Efforts are ongoing to amend the Rome Statute of the ICC to recognize ecocide as the fifth international crime, alongside genocide and crimes against humanity.

IV. Conclusion

Criminal liability for large-scale environmental destruction serves as a deterrent and ensures corporate and state accountability. The discussed cases collectively show that:

Environmental protection is integral to the Right to Life (Article 21).

Both corporations and individuals can face criminal charges.

Courts increasingly adopt the Polluter Pays, Precautionary, and Absolute Liability doctrines.

International law is evolving toward recognizing ecocide as a global crime.

Summary Table

Case	Year	Key Principle	Type of Liability
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India	1986	Absolute Liability	Criminal & Civil
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action	1996	Polluter Pays Principle	Strict/Criminal
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum	1996	Precautionary Principle	Civil/Constitutional
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case	1989–1992	Corporate Criminal Liability	Criminal
Trail Smelter Arbitration	1941	Transboundary Harm	State Responsibility