Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Illegal Industrial Pollution
Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Illegal Industrial Pollution
🧾 I. Introduction
Illegal industrial pollution occurs when industries discharge pollutants—air, water, or soil contaminants—beyond permissible limits or without required environmental clearances. This affects public health, biodiversity, and ecological balance.
Prosecution of such crimes typically involves:
Criminal liability under IPC (for harm caused to humans or property)
Environmental statutes (Air Act, Water Act, Environment Protection Act, 1986)
Penal provisions under Public Liability Insurance Act, Hazardous Waste Rules, etc.
Civil liability for compensation under tort principles
⚖️ II. Legal Framework
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 24: Offense of discharging pollutants into water bodies without consent
Punishment: Fine up to ₹1 lakh, imprisonment up to 1 year (repeat offenses more severe)
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Section 21: Discharging air pollutants beyond standards
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1 year and/or fine
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Section 15 & 16: Offenses for contravening standards or directions of authorities
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 5 years, fine up to ₹1 lakh
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
Compensation to victims for industrial accidents
Indian Penal Code
Section 268: Public nuisance
Section 269: Negligent act likely to spread infection
Section 277: Fouling water of public spring or reservoir
Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016
Illegal disposal attracts criminal and civil liability
🧑⚖️ III. Detailed Case Laws
1. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) AIR 1988 SC 1037
Facts:
Industrial units along the Ganga were discharging untreated effluents into the river, causing severe water pollution affecting public health.
Held:
Supreme Court held that industries discharging untreated effluents violate the Water Act and constitute a public nuisance under IPC Sections 268 and 277.
Court ordered closure of offending units and installation of effluent treatment plants (ETPs).
Significance:
Set a landmark precedent for strict environmental liability and polluter-pays principle.
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715
Facts:
Tanneries and chemical industries were discharging untreated effluents into Palar river, affecting agriculture and drinking water.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized “sustainable development” and “precautionary principle”.
Directed industries to adopt cleaner technologies and pay compensation for environmental damage.
Held violators liable under Environment Protection Act and tort law.
Significance:
Introduced absolute liability for hazardous industrial activity in India.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987) AIR 1987 SC 1086
Facts:
An oleum gas leak from Shriram Food & Fertilizers endangered lives and caused environmental harm.
Held:
Supreme Court held the company absolutely liable under Environment Protection Act.
Liability did not depend on negligence; mere occurrence of hazardous leak triggered criminal and civil responsibility.
Significance:
Established absolute liability doctrine for hazardous industries, stricter than conventional negligence standards.
4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446
Facts:
Industries in Tamil Nadu discharged toxic chemicals like mercury and lead into agricultural lands, causing health hazards.
Held:
Supreme Court held that industries are liable to compensate victims and restore environment.
Ordered closure of units failing to comply with environmental norms.
Violation of Environment Protection Act and Hazardous Waste Rules invoked criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Reinforced polluter-pays principle and prosecution for illegal discharge.
5. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (Municipal Solid Waste & Pollution Case, 1998) AIR 1999 SC 1005
Facts:
Municipal and industrial solid waste was dumped illegally, contaminating water bodies and soil.
Held:
Supreme Court held municipalities and industries liable for public nuisance (IPC 268, 277).
Directed proper waste treatment systems and criminal prosecution for negligent disposal.
Significance:
Recognized joint liability of industries and local authorities for pollution.
6. Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Haryana (2015, Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
Oil refinery was discharging untreated effluents into water bodies, violating Water Act and environmental clearances.
Held:
High Court imposed heavy fines and directed closure until compliance.
Criminal prosecution under Section 15 of Environment Protection Act initiated.
Significance:
Illustrates modern enforcement combining fines, prosecution, and operational restrictions.
🧩 IV. Common Legal Liabilities for Industrial Pollution
| Offence | Relevant Law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Discharging pollutants without consent | Water/ Air Act | Imprisonment up to 1 year + fine |
| Contravention of EPA orders | Environment Protection Act | Imprisonment up to 5 years + fine |
| Public nuisance / fouling water | IPC 268, 277 | Imprisonment / fine |
| Hazardous waste violation | Hazardous Waste Rules | Imprisonment up to 3 years + fine |
| Absolute liability for hazardous industry | Supreme Court precedent | Civil compensation + criminal penalty |
🧠 V. Preventive & Enforcement Measures
Mandatory Environmental Clearance (EC) under EPA 1986 before operation.
Regular inspection and monitoring by Pollution Control Boards.
Closure orders and criminal prosecution for violations.
Public interest litigation (PIL) as seen in M.C. Mehta cases.
Polluter-pays principle enforcement to fund environmental restoration.
🧾 VI. Conclusion
Prosecution of illegal industrial pollution in India combines criminal, civil, and regulatory liability. Key principles established by Supreme Court cases (M.C. Mehta, Vellore Citizens Forum, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action) include:
Absolute liability for hazardous industries
Polluter-pays principle
Civil and criminal compensation for environmental damage
Use of IPC public nuisance provisions alongside environmental statutes
Industries are criminally liable for non-compliance, and courts have consistently emphasized strict, deterrent measures to prevent ecological damage.
RELATED Blog
comments