Prosecution Of Environmental Crimes In Industrial Pollution
⚖️ I. Introduction: Industrial Pollution as an Environmental Crime
Industrial pollution refers to the discharge of harmful substances—air pollutants, effluents, or hazardous chemicals—by industries into the environment in violation of environmental laws.
It is considered a criminal offense because:
It threatens public health and safety.
It violates statutory environmental protection laws.
It undermines sustainable development.
Industrial pollution crimes can involve:
Illegal discharge of effluents into rivers or water bodies
Emission of toxic gases beyond permissible limits
Improper disposal of hazardous waste
Failure to obtain mandatory environmental clearances
⚖️ II. Relevant Legal Provisions (Indian Context)
A. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Section 24: Prohibits the discharge of pollutants without consent from the Pollution Control Board.
Section 25: Obligation to maintain proper effluent treatment.
Section 43: Penalties for contravention (imprisonment up to 2 years and fine).
B. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Section 21: Prohibition on emission beyond prescribed standards.
Section 31: Penalties (imprisonment up to 2 years or fines).
C. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Section 3: Central government has powers to protect and improve environment.
Section 15 & 16: Penal provisions for contravention of environmental rules and directions.
Section 19: Penalties can include imprisonment up to 5 years and fines.
D. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 268 IPC: Public nuisance
Section 277 IPC: Foul air or water rendering it noxious to health
E. Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989
Prohibits unsafe handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous industrial waste.
⚖️ III. Detailed Case Law Analysis
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1988–1990)
Facts:
Industries in Kanpur were discharging untreated effluents into the River Ganga. The water became heavily polluted, affecting public health.
Held:
Supreme Court invoked Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water Act, 1974, and public nuisance provisions of IPC.
Directed industries to install effluent treatment plants (ETPs) and comply with pollution norms.
Non-compliant industries faced closure or criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Set precedent for holding industries criminally liable for environmental pollution affecting public water sources.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Facts:
Oleum gas leaked from a chemical plant in Delhi, causing a major public health hazard.
Held:
Supreme Court applied principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries.
The company was criminally liable for damages and compensations, even without negligence.
Liability included civil and criminal consequences under the Environment Protection Act.
Significance:
Introduced absolute liability for hazardous industries, beyond fault-based negligence.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri, Rajasthan Case, 1996)
Facts:
Industries were discharging toxic effluents into agricultural lands in Rajasthan, contaminating soil and groundwater.
Held:
Supreme Court directed industries to pay for environmental restoration and public compensation.
Held that pollution of soil and water constitutes a criminal offense under Sections 24 & 25 of Water Act and Sections 15 & 16 of EPA.
Environmental authorities empowered to file criminal prosecutions.
Significance:
Recognized civil and criminal liability for long-term industrial pollution.
4. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Facts:
Tanneries in Tamil Nadu were discharging untreated effluents into rivers, polluting the water and affecting local communities.
Held:
Supreme Court applied the “Polluter Pays” principle and precautionary principle.
Industries were directed to treat effluents properly or face prosecution under Water and Environment Acts.
Criminal action was authorized for non-compliance with regulatory directions.
Significance:
Reinforced that industrial pollution causing public harm is actionable both civilly and criminally.
5. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts:
Residents complained that effluents from a local factory were polluting groundwater and air.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized clean environment as part of the fundamental right to life (Article 21).
Pollution causing public health risk attracts criminal liability under IPC Sections 268 and 277.
Directed state authorities to prosecute responsible industries.
Significance:
Linked environmental protection with fundamental rights, giving constitutional backing to prosecutions.
6. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (1999)
Facts:
Industries were discharging hazardous waste into open areas, affecting air, water, and soil.
Held:
Supreme Court directed the state pollution boards to initiate criminal proceedings under Hazardous Waste Rules and EPA.
Recognized that administrative action alone is insufficient; prosecution is necessary for deterrence.
Significance:
Highlighted criminal liability as an effective tool to enforce environmental compliance.
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case, 1996–2000)
Facts:
Industrial emissions from nearby factories were causing air pollution affecting the Taj Mahal.
Held:
Court held that industries causing air pollution are criminally liable under Air Act, 1981.
Directed closure of polluting industries and implementation of cleaner technologies.
Significance:
First case emphasizing industrial air pollution as a criminal offense with national heritage impact.
⚖️ IV. Principles Derived from Case Law
Absolute Liability for Hazardous Industries: No fault required; liability arises for harm caused.
Polluter Pays Principle: Industries must bear costs of environmental restoration.
Precautionary Principle: Industries must take preventive measures.
Criminal Liability under Environmental Acts: Water Act, Air Act, EPA, and IPC Sections 268 & 277 are enforceable.
Constitutional Backing: Right to life (Article 21) includes right to a clean environment.
⚖️ V. Punishment and Remedies
Imprisonment: Up to 5 years under EPA; 2 years under Water and Air Acts.
Fines: Can range from ₹25,000 to several lakh rupees, depending on damage.
Civil Compensation: Restoration of affected land, water, or air quality.
Closure Orders: Non-compliant industries may be shut down by authorities.
⚖️ VI. Conclusion
Prosecution of industrial pollution crimes in India relies on strict statutory frameworks, judicial activism, and constitutional principles. Courts have consistently emphasized:
Criminal liability ensures deterrence.
Absolute and strict liability principles apply to hazardous industries.
Enforcement includes criminal, civil, and administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
comments