Env Protection
Env Protection
Env Protection
Development Team
Prof. R.K. Kohli
Principal Investigator
& Prof. V.K. Garg & Prof. Ashok Dhawan
Co- Principal Investigator
Central University of Punjab, Bathinda
Module Id EVS/ELP-XIII/12
LEARNING OUTCOME:
Introduction
Environment Protection is a much discussed topic and has dominated the debates in the public fora,
especially since the sixties. The quality of the environment has been degrading for centuries, ever
since the mankind decided to exploit nature for its own good, but the degradation has escalated with
the advent of the industrial revolution and the dawn of the era of machines.
Increased human population, increase in demand, decline in vegetation to accommodate the needs of
the increased population, release of chemicals in the environment, disruption of food chains due to
Activities like fishing are very few examples of how the environment is being exploited and abused.
The result of all this is an increased concern over the health and safety of the environment, for which
time to time numerous piece of legislations and treaties have resurfaced. In the Indian context, many
legislations have emerged specifically focusing on the kinds of pollution, like The Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or The Water Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. But the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 is one of the most exhaustive legislation for the protection for the
environment. It is a general piece of legislation for the protection of environment. It was enacted under
Article 253 of the Constitution. The world community’s resolve to protect and enhance the
environment quality found expression in the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the
Objects:
i. The Environment Protection Act is a means to implement the decisions of the UN Conference
on the Human Environment held in Stockholm (June 1972).
ii. The Environment Protection Act also seeks to enact a general blanket law on environmental
protection, dealing with all aspects of pollution and harm to the nature and not limiting its
scope to just one type of pollution or pollutants.
iii. The exhaustive nature of Environment Protection Act also ensures that no ambit of
environmental protection is left and all hazards’ to the environment are absolutely roofed and
addressed under the Act.
iv. The Act also provides punishment (deterrent in nature) to those responsible for causing harm to
the environment or endangering it.
v. The Act provides for a scheme and a mechanism of working of various already existing
regulatory authorities and also creates more agencies for furtherance of environment
protection.
vi. The Act also aims at promoting sustainable development as a means to achieve the end of
prosperity and opulence.
4
Important Definitions:
The Act provides the Central Government with the power to take measures to protect and improve the
environment. It endows the Central government the power to take all measures which it deems
necessary to protect, preserve and improve the environment. It can take measures to curb activities
causing harm to the environment it can control and bring a halt to activities discharging pollutants. In
particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provision such measures may include
measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:-
Section 3(3) gives power to the central government to constitute an “authority” or “authorities” to
assist in its functions which is tied with the duty to constitute such an authority so as to provide a
better mechanism. This was highlighted in various cases such as Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338; T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad v.Union of India and Others, (2014)
4 SCC 61.
The ambit of powers given to the central government under this Act is very wide and under this
section the central government also can implement the suggestions of the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court in various cases such as F.B. Taraporawala v. Bayer India Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 58, has
directed the Central Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. The Central government has constituted the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and
Payment of Compensation) Authority for the state of Tamil Nadu on the instruction of the Supreme
Court. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India also known as T. N. Tanneries case,
(1996) 5 SCC 647 where the Supreme Court observed:
“Keeping in view the scenario discussed by us in this judgment, we order and direct as under:
i. The Central Government shall constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and shall confer on the said authority all the
powers necessary to deal with the situation created by the tanneries and other
polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu.
ii. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement the
“Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle”.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 435, the Supreme Court pointed out that
the step taken by the government in constituting the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control)
Authority for the National Capital Region is appropriate and timely and the above authority will deal
with entire matters relating to environmental pollution in the NCR. It was further pointed out that
except for the chairman, central pollution control board being an ex-officio member of the authority
The Central government also has the power to give directions under the Act. It can issue directions to
any person or any officer or any authority to exercise its functions under the Act and such directions
9
In the case of Mahabir Soap and Guakhu Factory v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Ori 218, the
Government of India has issued directions to close down a factory which were accompanied with
instructions to disconnect the water supply and electricity connections. Such measures were taken
since the factory was situated in a thickly populated area and the untreated discharge was polluting the
water reservoirs hence causing harm to the environment and jeopardising the health of the people
living in the local limits. The court established the basis of such orders in accordance with Section 5 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Gujarat High Court also dealt with a similar question in the case of Narula Dyeing and Printing
Works v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj 185, where the Narula Dyeing and Printing Works were
discharging their untreated trade effluents into the stream which was an irrigation canal. The state
government as well as the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board to whom the powers were delegated
by the Central Government in accordance with Section 3(3) issued directions under Section 5 of the
Environment Protection Act to close down the factory. In this case also the Petitioner’s challenged the
powers of the State Government on the ground that no personal hearing was provided to them. The
court did not accept the plea of the petitioner and further observed that the government is fully
empowered to dispense with the opportunity of hearing being given for filing objections against the
proposed directions in such cases of grave injury to the environment. It is intended to safeguard the
environment from any grave injury to any component of the environment.
The Central Government also has the power to make rules to regulate environment pollution. The
Government in exercise of this power has already enacted "The Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986" which also came into force w.e f. 19 November, 1986. These rules, inter alia, provide for (i) the
10
Section 7 of the Act specifically provides that no person carrying on any industry, operation or process
shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or be emitted any environmental pollution in excess
of the prescribed standards. Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act provides that certain
standards have to be maintained and no person or an industry can be permitted to cause damage to the
environment. If any person is found guilty of causing damage to the environment then by applying the
“polluter pays principle" he can be asked to pay the exemplary damages for polluting the environment.
In D.S. Rana v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, AIR 2000 Guj 45, the imposition of restrictions
on the trade or operation of melting gold and silver which was causing public nuisance and a health
hazard and damaging the environment was held to be proper.
Section 8 provides that persons handling hazardous substances are required to comply with procedural
safeguards where the discharge of any environmental pollution in excess of prescribed standards
occurs or is apprehended to occur due to accident or other unforeseen circumstances the people
responsible for such discharge and the person in charge of the place where the discharge occurs shall
be bound to mitigate or reduce the pollution. He is required to give intimation and render all assistance
to the concerned authorities.
Section 9 provides that on receipt of such intimation or otherwise the concerned authorities shall take
steps to prevent or mitigate the environmental pollution
11
13
The Act incorporates the principle of vicarious liability of the person in-charge, Director, Manager,
Secretary or other officer for the offence if committed by the company. When any offence is
committed by the company, the company as well as the person directly in-charge of and responsible
for the conduct and business of company shall be deemed to be guilty and liable to punishment.
However the person in-charge and responsible for the conduct and business of the company is not held
liable if he proves
(i) that the offence was committed without his knowledge; or
(ii) that he exercised all due diligence/care to prevent the commission of such
If it is proved that the offence has been committed by a company with the consent, or connivance, or
negligence of any director, manager, secretary other officer of the company then such persons are
deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable for punishment (Section 16).
When an offence under this Act has been committed by any Government Department, the head of the
department shall be deemed to be guilty and liable for punishment. However, there is no liability of the
head of the department if he proves (a) that the offence was committed without his knowledge; or (b)
that he exercised all due diligence/care to prevent the commission of such offence.
Section 17 states that if it is proved that the offence has been committed by a Government Department
with the consent, or connivance or negligence of any officer be that the head of the department, then
such a person shall be deemed to guilty and liable for punishment. However, the Act provides
protection for Actions taken in good faith (Section 18).
In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd, (2003) SCC 745, the Supreme Court made it
clear that directors and managers who were responsible for causing the pollution would be liable under
section 16 of the Environment Protection Act and there was inordinate delay in taking up the case. The
court further observed that it couldn’t afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and
water.
14
15