Environmental Crimes In Indian Criminal Law
I. Legal Framework for Environmental Crimes in India
A. Constitutional Provisions
Article 21 – Right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment (interpreted by courts).
Article 48A – Directive to the State to protect the environment.
Article 51A(g) – Fundamental duty of citizens to protect and improve the environment.
B. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 268: Public nuisance
Section 269-270: Negligent or malignant acts likely to spread infection
Section 277: Fouling water of public spring or reservoir
Section 278: Making atmosphere noxious to health
Section 290: Punishment for public nuisance
C. Major Environmental Laws
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
II. Case Laws on Environmental Crimes in India
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987 AIR 1086)
Facts:
A leakage of oleum gas from Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries in Delhi resulted in the death of an advocate and affected several people.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta.
Legal Issue:
Whether the company could be held liable for the gas leak under tort and criminal law.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of Absolute Liability, which is stricter than the traditional rule of strict liability.
Industries engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for any damage caused, irrespective of negligence or fault.
Importance:
Paved the way for strict liability in environmental crimes.
Emphasized corporate responsibility and environmental safety.
2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996 AIR 1446)
Facts:
Several chemical industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, were found discharging hazardous waste, contaminating groundwater and soil.
The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action filed a PIL seeking action against these industries.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the polluting industries were liable to compensate affected persons and restore the environment.
Applied the Polluter Pays Principle for the first time in Indian jurisprudence.
Importance:
Established that environmental degradation caused by industry must be compensated by the polluter.
Recognized the need for environmental remediation.
3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996 AIR 2715)
Facts:
A PIL was filed against tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharging untreated effluents into agricultural fields, wells, and water bodies.
The pollution was affecting health and agriculture in the region.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle.
Directed the closure of polluting tanneries and mandated compensation and clean-up measures.
Ordered establishment of a "Green Bench" in the Madras High Court to handle environmental cases.
Importance:
Solidified the role of the judiciary in enforcing environmental protection.
Balanced the need for development with environmental sustainability.
4. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999 AIR 812)
Facts:
A bottling plant for chemical industries was proposed near two reservoirs in Andhra Pradesh, raising concerns of water contamination.
The Pollution Control Board initially granted consent but later withdrew it due to environmental concerns.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for expert bodies in environmental decision-making.
Highlighted the Precautionary Principle and said scientific uncertainty should not delay preventive action.
Importance:
Strengthened the need for environmental risk assessment.
Recognized the importance of scientific expertise in evaluating environmental impact.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997 1 SCC 388)
Facts:
A motel owned by the family of then Minister Kamal Nath was found encroaching on the riverbed of the Beas River and altering its course for commercial gain.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that natural resources like rivers and forests are held in trust by the State for the public.
Held the government and the motel liable for violating environmental rights.
Importance:
Introduced Public Trust Doctrine into Indian law.
Prevented private appropriation of natural resources meant for public use.
6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997 AIR SC 1228)
Facts:
Concerned illegal deforestation in various parts of India.
PIL sought enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court expanded the definition of "forest" and imposed a ban on tree felling without permission.
Set up a monitoring mechanism for forest conservation.
Importance:
Became a landmark judgment in forest conservation and biodiversity protection.
Led to continuous monitoring of forest and wildlife protection by the Supreme Court.
III. Key Principles Emerged from the Cases
| Principle | Description | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute Liability | No exceptions, liable for any damage from hazardous activity | M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas Case) |
| Polluter Pays Principle | Polluter must pay for restoration and compensation | Vellore Citizens; Bichhri Case |
| Precautionary Principle | Prevent harm even if science is uncertain | A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Nayudu |
| Public Trust Doctrine | Government holds environment in trust for people | M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath |
IV. Conclusion
Environmental crimes in Indian criminal law are addressed through both general and specific legislations. The judiciary has played a significant role in evolving legal doctrines and ensuring environmental justice. While legislation provides the foundation, it is through the courts that these laws have been meaningfully interpreted and enforced, ensuring accountability and sustainable development.
RELATED Blog
0 comments