Criminal Liability For Water Contamination Through Factories
Criminal Liability for Water Contamination Through Factories
Water contamination by factories occurs when industrial units release untreated or hazardous effluents into rivers, lakes, or groundwater, affecting public health and the environment. Under Indian law, polluting water is treated as a criminal and civil offense, attracting severe penalties.
Legal Framework
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 277 – Fouling water of public spring or reservoir, punishable with imprisonment or fine.
Section 278 – Making atmosphere noxious to health (applied in certain chemical contamination cases).
Section 279/304A – If contamination indirectly causes death or grievous harm.
2. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 24 – Prohibition of discharge of pollutants into water bodies.
Section 25 – Consent requirement for effluent discharge.
Section 26 – Penalties for contravention: imprisonment up to 6 months, fine up to Rs. 25,000, or both.
3. Environment Protection Act, 1986
Section 15 – Penalty for failure to comply with environmental standards.
Section 16 – Authority can direct closure, prohibition, or regulation of polluting industries.
4. Essential Elements of Offense
Factory discharges untreated effluents into public water bodies.
Pollutants endanger public health or the environment.
Action is willful or negligent.
CASE LAWS ON WATER CONTAMINATION BY FACTORIES
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) – Ganga Water Pollution Case
Facts:
Factories in Kanpur were discharging untreated industrial effluents into the Ganga River.
Legal Findings:
Pollution violated the Water Act 1974 and Environment Protection Act 1986.
Supreme Court emphasized the right to clean water as part of the right to life (Article 21).
Outcome:
Court directed closure of non-compliant units.
Factories were ordered to adopt effluent treatment plants (ETPs).
Legal Principle:
Factories have a legal duty to prevent water contamination; violation attracts civil and criminal liability.
2. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts:
Groundwater near industrial units in Bihar was contaminated with chemicals, affecting nearby villages.
Legal Findings:
Supreme Court held pollution of water violates Article 21 (right to life).
Sections 24, 25 of Water Act invoked.
Outcome:
Factory owners were fined; directed to treat effluents before discharge.
Compensation awarded to affected villagers.
Legal Principle:
Negligence causing water contamination leads to civil liability, criminal prosecution, and environmental restitution.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Chemical factories in Tamil Nadu discharged toxic effluents into agricultural lands and water bodies.
Legal Findings:
Factories violated Water Act 1974, IPC Section 277, and Environment Protection Act.
Pollution caused health hazards and crop damage.
Outcome:
Supreme Court imposed heavy fines.
Factories required to restore environment.
Liability extended to management and directors.
Legal Principle:
Corporate management is criminally liable for environmental violations under IPC and environmental statutes.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Facts:
Though primarily a gas leak, the case involved discharge into nearby water sources, posing contamination risks.
Legal Findings:
Held factories have absolute liability for hazardous discharges.
Referenced IPC Section 277 and 278 for noxious contamination.
Outcome:
Court emphasized strict liability for industries handling hazardous substances.
Damages imposed without proof of negligence.
Legal Principle:
Factories cannot escape liability for water or environmental contamination, even if accidental, under strict liability doctrine.
5. Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004)
Facts:
A sugar factory discharged untreated effluents into a river, causing death of aquatic life and affecting drinking water supply.
Legal Findings:
IPC Sections 277 and 278 applied.
Water Act penalties imposed for non-compliance.
Outcome:
Factory fined heavily; imprisonment imposed for managerial negligence.
Closure ordered until compliance achieved.
Legal Principle:
Intentional or negligent discharge leading to environmental or health hazards constitutes criminal liability.
6. Okhla Industrial Estate v. Municipal Corporation Delhi (2010)
Facts:
Industries in Okhla discharged untreated wastewater into Yamuna River.
Legal Findings:
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act invoked.
Factories were not complying with consent to discharge norms.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ordered closure of non-compliant units.
Heavy fines imposed; mandatory installation of ETPs.
Legal Principle:
Industrial discharge into public water bodies without treatment is a criminal offense and subject to regulatory enforcement.
7. Sterlite Industries Water Contamination Case (2013–2018, Tuticorin)
Facts:
Alleged contamination of groundwater and rivers by Sterlite copper plant.
Legal Findings:
State pollution control board noted violation of Water Act and Environment Protection Act.
Public interest litigation highlighted health hazards to villagers.
Outcome:
Supreme Court and State authorities directed plant closure and cleanup measures.
Criminal liability considered under IPC Sections 277, 278, and Water Act.
Legal Principle:
Large-scale industrial water contamination involves both criminal and environmental liability, and authorities can act to prevent ongoing harm.
Key Legal Principles Across Cases
Water contamination is a criminal offense under IPC Sections 277, 278 and Water Act provisions.
Factories are strictly liable for effluent discharge, even if accidental.
Corporate management and directors can be personally liable.
Compensation and restoration measures are often imposed along with criminal penalties.
Environmental and public health concerns elevate the severity of punishment.
Public interest litigation and government enforcement play a key role in enforcing accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments