UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT

THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Miss. Komal Garg Pooja Sharma
160/14
SECTION C
B.COM. LL.B. - 8th Sem

!1
 Acknowledgement
I owe a great thanks to a great many people who helped and supported
me during the writing of this project.

My deepest thanks to my environmental law Lecturer, Miss. Komal

Garg, the Guide of the project for guiding me and correcting various
documents of mine with attention and care. She has taken pain to go
through the project and make necessary corrections as and when
needed.

I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without

whom this project would have been a distant reality. I also extend my
heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers.

- Pooja Sharma


!2
 Table Of Contents
Acknowledgement 2
Table of Contents 3
Table of Cases 4
Introduction 5
Objects 6
Scope and Commencement of the Act 6
Definitions 6
Power of the Central Government to Take Measures to Protect and Improve the
Environment 8
Power to Give Directions 14
Appeal to National Green Tribunal 15
Prevention, Control and Abatement of Environmental Pollution 16
Power to Take Sample and Procedure to be Followed 17
Penalty for Contravention of the Provisions of the Act, Rules, Orders and Directions
18
Offences by Companies and Government Department 20
Who can make the complaint 21
Bar of Jurisdiction 22
Power to Make Rules 22
Bibliography 24

!3
 Table Of Cases
1. Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 181
2. D.S. Rana v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation AIR 2000 Guj. 45
3. F.B.Taraporawala v. Bayer India Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 58
4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action V. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281
5. Mahabir Soap and Guakhu Factory v. Union of India AIR 1995 Ori. 218
6. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 435
8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 356
9. Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India AIR 1995 Guj. 185
10. Suo Motu v. Vatva Industries Asso. AIR 2000 Guj. 33
11. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87
12. Sneha Mandal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2000 Bom. 121
13. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1636
14. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 150
15. U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 745
16. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

!4
 Introduction
The concern over the state of environment has grown the world over since the sixties. The decline
in environmental quality has been evidenced by increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and
biological diversity, excessive increasing concentration of harmful chemicals in the ambient
atmosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental accidents and threat to life support
systems. From time to time various legislations relating to protection of environment from specific
types of pollution have been passed by the Indian legislature. However, the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) is the most comprehensive Act on the Indian statute book relating to
environment protection. It is a general 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
environmental quality found expression in the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment held in Stockholm June, 1972. The Government of India participated in
the conference and strongly voiced the environmental concerns. While several measures had been
taken for environmental protection, both before and after the Conference, the need for general
legislation further to implement the decision of the Conference had become increasingly evident.

The United Nations conference on human environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972,
proclaimed that “Man is both creator and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical
sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In
the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has reached when through
the rapid acceleration of science and technology man has acquired the power to transform his
environment in countless ways and on unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the
natural and man made are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights
even the right to life itself”.

While several legislations such as The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were enacted after the Conference, the
need for a general legislation had become increasingly evident. The EPA was enacted so as to
overcome this deficiency.

!5
 Objects
i. To implement the decisions made at the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment held
at Stockholm in June, 1972.
ii. To enact general law on environmental protection which could cover uncovered gaps in the
areas of major environmental hazards as the existing laws generally focused on specific
types of pollution or on specific categories of hazardous substances and some major areas of
environmental hazards were not covered.
iii. To co-ordinate activities of the various regulatory agencies under the existing laws and
creation of an authority or authorities for environment protection.
iv. To provide for deterrent punishment to those who endanger human environment, safety and
health.
v. To ensure sustainable development is also one of the goals of the Environment
(Protection)Act, 1986. If the Act is not armed with the powers to ensure sustainable
development, it will become a barren shell. In other words, sustainable development is one
of the means to achieve the object and purpose of the Act as well as the protection of “life”
under Article 21. Acknowledgement of this principle will breathe new life into our
environmental jurisprudence and constitutional resolve.

Scope And Commencement Of The Act

(SECTION 1)

It came into force on 19th November, 1986. It extends to the whole of India.

Definitions
(SECTION 2)

Section 2 of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 (EPA) deals with definitions. Some of the
important definitions are given as under:

!6
 "Environment"—includes water, air, land and the inter-relationship which exists among and
between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and
property.
It may be noted here that the above definition is an "inclusive" definition and, therefore, it does not
exhaust the entire universe of what is covered by the word "environment". Exhaustive definitions,
in an evolving field like environmental control, are likely to lead to recourse to judicial
interpretation of highly complex scientific and technological matters, whose complexion is ever
changing as knowledge accumulates dynamically.

"Environmental Pollutant"—means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such

concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment.

"Environmental Pollution”—means the presence in the environment of any environmental

pollutant.

"Handling"—in relation to any substance, means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package,
storage transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the like
of such substance.

"Hazardous Substance"—means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or

physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment.

"Occupier"—in relation to any factory or premises means a person who has control over the affairs
of the factory or the premises and includes, relation to any substance, the person in possession of
the substance.

From the above definitions it is clear that EPA intends to cover a very wide range of subject matters
relating to environment protection.

!7
 Power Of The Central Government To Take
Measures To Protect And Improve The
Environment
(SECTION 3)

The Central Government has the power to take all such measures as it deems necessary for the
purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment and preventing, controlling and
abating environmental pollution. Such measures may include measures with respect to all or any of
the following matters, namely
i. co-ordination of actions by the State Government officers and other authorities under this
Act or under any other law;
ii. planning and execution of nation-wide programmes for the prevention, control and
abatement of environmental pollution;
iii. laying down standards for the quality of environment in the various aspects;
iv. laying down standards for the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants;
v. restriction of areas in which any industry, operation or process shall be carried out;
vi. laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause
environmental pollution and remedial measures for such accidents;
vii. laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances;
viii. examination of manufacturing processes, materials and substances which are likely to cause
environmental pollution;
ix. carrying out and sponsoring investigations and research relating to problems of
environmental pollution;
x. inspection of any premises, equipment, material or substance to take etc., and giving
directions to authorities, persons and officers steps for the prevention, control and abatement
of environmental pollution;
xi. establishment and recognition of environmental laboratories;
xii. preparation of manuals, codes or guides relating to the prevention, control and abatement of
environmental pollution;
xiii. collection and dissemination of information in respect of matters relating to environmental
pollution;

!8
 xiv. Such other matters as the Central Government may deem necessary for the purposes of
securing effective implementation of this Act.

Under section 3(3) the Central Government may constitute an "authority" or authorities to exercise
powers and perform functions as mentioned above. The Central Government is also having the
power to appoint officers to exercise powers and perform functions under this Act.

The power of the government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the EPA is coupled
with the duty to constitute such an authority for providing a better regulatory mechanism.

It is submitted that very wide power has been conferred under section 3(3) of the EPA, on the
Central Government to constitute any "authority" to exercise powers and perform functions
mentioned in the Act. The Central Government under this section, can implement the suggestion of
the Supreme Court for establishment of "environment courts" which alone should be empowered to
deal with all matters, civil and criminal relating to environment.

The Supreme Court in various cases has directed the Central Government to constitute "authority"
under section 3(3) of the EPA. For example, in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India1,
the Supreme Court observed :

The main purpose of the (Environment) Act is to create an authority or authorities under section
3(3) of the Act with adequate power to control pollution and protect the environment. It is a pity
that till date no authority has been constituted by the Central Government. The work which is
required to be done by an authority in terms of section 3(3) read with other provisions of the Act is
being done by this court and the other courts in the country. It is high time that the Central
Government realises its responsibility and statutory duty to protect the degrading environment in
the country.

Thus, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute an authority and confer on this
authority all the powers necessary to deal with the situation created by tanneries and other polluting

1 (1996) 5 SCC 647

!9
industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court further directed that the authority so constituted
shall implement the "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays principle.”

The Central Government, accordingly constituted the "Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of
Compensation) Authority" for the State of Tamil Nadu which was also conferred with the power to
implement the "polluter pays principle" and the "precautionary principle".

The Supreme Court has also directed in various other cases the Central Government to constitute
authority under section 3(3) of the EPA.

The Central Government has constituted the "Environment Impact Assessment for the National
Capital Region" and the "Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the
National Capital Region”.

As considerable adverse environment impact has been caused due to degradation of the
environment with excessive soil erosion and water and air pollution due to certain development
activities therefore it is necessary to protect the environment. This can be achieved only by careful
assessment of a project proposed to be located in any area, on the basis of an environment impact
assessment and environment management plan for the prevention, elimination or mitigation of the
adverse impacts, right from the inception stage of the project.

The Central Government has passed certain notifications laying that the expansion or modernization
of any existing industry or new projects listed shall not be undertaken in any part of India, unless it
gets environmental clearance by the Central Government, or the State Government.

While explaining the scope of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the EPA, Bombay High Court in Sneha
Mandal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India2 , observed that sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
EPA authorise the Central government plenary powers to take all steps and measures as it deems
necessary or expedient for the purposes of protecting and improving the quality of environment and
for the purposes of preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. The Act also
contemplates appointment of several authorities for the purposes of overseeing the effective

2 AIR 2000 Bom. 121

!10
implementation of the environment protection policy envisaged by the Act. Section 5 of the Act
gives specific powers to the Central Government for issuing directions in writing from time to time
to any person, officer or any authority in connection with the Act which such person is bound to
comply with. Under the Act, the Central Government is authorised to monitor the implementation
of the Act.

However, the Central Government while issuing the notifications has to balance various interests
including economic, ecological, social and cultural. While economic development should not be
allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and
violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper
economic and other development. Both development and environment must go hand in hand. In
other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa.

The Pollution Control Board and its officers are free and competent to take action against any
person on violating any provision of the environmental laws. They need not to wait for the direction
of the court for taking action under the law. In fact, such a course of seeking would amount to
dereliction of duty. ; under the law.

In F.B.Taraporawala v. Bayer India Ltd.3 , the Supreme Court ordered the relocation of industries
located in the populated area in Thane (Mumbai). Since the Supreme Court did not have expertise
regarding various requisite information to decide the question of relocation, it directed the Central
Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the EPA within one month. The
Authority was required to submit its report to the Central government within three months after
examining and deciding all the relevant issues by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India under Section 3(3) of the EPA has constituted the
Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for National Capital Region. The Court
observed that the step taken by the Government is appropriate and timely and the above authority
will deal with entire matters relating to environmental pollution in the National Capital Territory

3 (1996) 6 SCC 58
4 (1998) 2 SCC 435
!11
Region. It was further pointed out that except for the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board
being an ex-officio member of the Authority, the remaining members would be in the Committee
not merely by virtue of their office but because of the personal qualifications on account of which
they were included in the committee.

The Central Government pursuant to the judgment in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action V.
Union of India5, constituted under section 3(3) of the EPA the National Coastal Management
Authority. The question raised by the Supreme Court suo moto in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India, was as to why three persons from the same State (Maharashtra) had been
inducted into the Central Authority, moreover when none of them was a specialist. The Court
directed the Additional Solicitor to obtain instructions as to the possibility of inducting persons
from other coastal states to replace two persons from Maharashtra. The Supreme Court emphasised
that in the National Coastal Management Authority there should be representation from as many
coastal states as possible.

In S. Jagannath v. Union of India6 , the Supreme Court also directed the Central Government to
constitute 'an authority' under section 3(3) of the EPA and confer all powers necessary to protect the
ecologically fragile coastal area, sea-shore, waterfront and other coastal areas especially to deal
with the situation created by shrimp culture industry in those areas.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India7 , 66 wagons containing timber were seized.
The Supreme Court appointed a high powered committee to take such steps, as it deems proper and
necessary/appropriate investigation, storage, disposal etc. of the detained timber and to carry out
such action in future as the Court may direct. It was made clear by the Court that the Ministry of
Environment and Forests could issue suitable directions for the effective implementation of the
orders of the Court.

In Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India8, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to
constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the EPA and also to confer on the said authority all the

5 (1996) 5 SCC 281

6 (1997) 2 SCC 87
7 AIR 2000 SC 1636
8 (2001) 9 SCC 181
!12
powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile Dahanu Taluka and control pollution in the said
area. The authority was required to be headed by a retired judge of the High Court and it might have
other members with expertise in the field of hydrology, oceanography, terrestrial and aquatic
ecology, environmental engineering, development and environmental planning and information
technology. The Central Government was also required to confer on the said authority the powers to
issue directions under Section 5 of the EPA. The authority so constituted by the said government
was required to consider and implement the “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle”.
It is submitted that the above said directions of the Supreme Court were in consonance with the
principle of sustainable development.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India9 , the Supreme Court held that the directions given by the
Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority constituted under section 3 of the EPA
are final and binding on all the persons and organizations concerned and they are bound to follow
the same.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India10, a PIL under article 32 was filed for
protecting tropical rainforests, and forest resources in the State of Tamil Nadu. It came to light that
the funds collected by various State Governments for compensatory afforestation were not being
appropriately utilized. On the recommendations of CEC (Central Empowered Committee) and on
the basis of consensus among States and Union Territories, it was decided that a fund should be
created wherein all the monies received from the user agencies are to be deposited and subsequently
released directly to the implementing agencies as and when required. In the present case, the
Supreme Court directed the Government to release certain minimum amount for afforestation
Scheme, wildlife conservation and other forest conservation.

9 (2002) 4 SCC 356

10 (2014) 6 SCC 150
!13
 Power To Give Directions
(SECTION 5)

The Central Government in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this
Act, can issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority and they shall be bound to
comply with these directions. Power to issue directions includes the power to direct :—
(i) The closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process;
(ii) Stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service.

The Supreme Court in the case of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India11 , has
directed that the Central Government shall also confer the above mentioned powers on the authority
constituted under the Act.

In Mahabir Soap and Guakhu Factory v. Union of India12, the appellant industry was situated in a
thickly populated area and was discharging untreated effluents resulting in pollution of water
reservoir. The government of India issued directions to close down the factory. Further directions
were issued to the authorities concerned to disconnect the water and electricity supply to the factory.
These orders were challenged on the basis that directions had been issued without giving a
reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and without specifying the time to comply with the said
directions. The Court observed that there had not been any violation of any provision of law and the
Government of India rightly gave the directions under section 5 of the EPA.

A similar question was also considered by the Gujarat High Court in Narula Dyeing and Printing
Works v. Union of India13. The Narula Dyeing and Printing Works were discharging their untreated
waste into the stream, which was an irrigation canal. The State Government as well as the Gujarat
State Pollution Control Board to whom the power were delegated by the Central Government,
issued directions under section 5 of the EPA to close down the factory. In this case also the
petitioners 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

11 (1996) 5 SCC 647

12 AIR 1995 Ori. 218
13 AIR 1995 Guj. 185
!14
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.

Appeal To National Green Tribunal

(SECTION 5A)

After the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, a new provision, i.e., section 5A has
been added which provides as under:
5A. Appeal to National Green Tribunal.—Any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the
Appellate Authority under section 31, made on or after the commencement of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

The Central Government has also 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 in force w.e.f. 19 November, 1986. These rules, inter alia, provide for :—
(i) the standards of quality of air, water or soil for various areas and purposes;
(ii) the maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants
(including noise) for different areas;
(iii) the procedure and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances;
(iv) the prohibition and restrictions on the handling of hazardous substances in different
areas;
(v) the prohibition and restriction on the location of industries in different areas;
(vi) the procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause
environmental pollution and for providing remedial measures for such accidents.

Rule 30 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 provides that the standards for emission or
discharge of environmental pollutants from industries, operations or processes shall be specified in
Schedules I to IV to protect and improve the environment. Rule 3 (2) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986 empowers the Central and State Boards to specify more stringent standards

!15
than prescribed in the schedules. Various schedules dealing with different aspects of environmental
pollutants are given as under:
Schedule I It has enlisted 89 industries and the parameter and standards of emission/discharge.
Schedule III Ambient Air Standards in Respect of Noise.
Schedule IV Standards for Emission of Smoke, vapour, etc. from Motor Vehicles. Schedule VI
General Standards for discharge of Environmental Pollutants. Schedule VII National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.

Prevention, Control And Abatement Of

Environmental Pollution
(SECTIONS 7 — 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 emitted any environmental pollution in
excess of the prescribed standards.

Section 7 of the EPA provides that certain standards have to be maintained and no person or an
industry can be permitted to cause damage 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 ay the
"exemplary damages" for polluting the environment.

In D.S. Rana v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation14 , 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 as 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 act or event, the
person responsible for such discharge and the person in-charge of the place where the discharge
occurs or is apprehended to occur shall be bound to mitigate the environmental pollution. He is also
required to give intimation of and render all assistance to the concerned authorities. On the receipt

14 AIR 2000 Guj. 45

!16
of the intirnation or otherwise, the authorities are required to take remedial measures to prevent or
mitigate environmental pollution. The Act also permits the Central Government to give any person
powers of entry and inspection of any place for the purpose of examining and testing any
equipment, industrial plant, record, register or document and make such seizures as is necessary to
prevent or mitigate environmental pollution.

Every person carrying on any industry, operation or process of handling any hazardous substance
shall be bound to render all assistance to the person empowered by the Central Government under
sub-section (1) for carrying out the functions under that sub-section and if he fails to do so without
any reasonable cause' or excuse, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

If any person willfully delays or obstructs any person empowered by the Central Government under
sub-section (1) in the performance of his functions, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, or any area in which that Code is not in force, the provisions of any corresponding law in
force in that State or area shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure under this section as
they apply to any search or seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under section 94 of
the said Code or, as the case may be, under the corresponding provision of the said law.

Power To Take Sample And Procedure To Be

Followed
(SECTIONS 11—14)

The Central Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf has the power to take, for the
purpose of analysis, samples of .—
(i) air,
(ii) water,
(iii) soil, or
(iv) other substance.

!17
The sample can be taken in prescribed manner from any:
(i) factory,
(ii) premises, or
(iii) other place.
In order to make the result of any sample admissible in the evidence in any legal proceedings, the
following procedure must be followed:
(i) Notice must be served on the occupier or his agent or person in-charge of the place. The
notice must indicate the intention to have analysis of the sample;
(ii) sample must be collected in the presence of the occupier agent;
(iii) sample to be placed in the container which should be marked, sealed and should be
signed both by the person taking the sample and the occupier or agent;
(iv) send the container to the environmental laboratory without delay.

In case, the occupier, his agent, person in-charge wilfully absents himself at the time of collecting
sample, or refuses to sign the marked and sealed container, it shall be marked, sealed and signed by
the person collecting the sample and send it without delay to the laboratory for analysis. He should
also inform the government analyst in writing about wilful absence or refusal to sign by the
occupier or his agent or person.

The Central Government may establish or recognise one or more laboratories under this Act. The
Central Government may also appoint or recognise qualified persons as government analysts. The
report of the analyst can be used as evidence of fact stated therein in any proceedings under this
Act.

Penalty For Contravention Of The Provisions

Of The Act, Rules, Orders And Directions
(SECTION 15)

As stated earlier, one of the objects of EPA is to provide for deterrent punishment to those who
endanger human environment, safety and health. Section 15 of the EPA provides that any person
who fails to comply or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or

!18
directions issued under the Act or rules, then for each failure or contravention, he shall be
punishable:—
(i) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years; or
(ii) with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; or
(iii) with both.
In case the failure or contravention continues after the conviction for first failure or contravention,
an additional fine which may extend to five thousand for every day can be imposed for a period
during which failure or contravention continues.

If the failure or contravention continues beyond a period of one year after conviction, the offender
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath15, the Supreme Court has clarified that if a fine is to be imposed
upon the person who is found guilty of having contravened any provision of the Act, he is to be
tried for that specific offence under the relevant provision of law and then on being found guilty, he
may be punished either by sentencing him to undergo imprisonment as contemplated by the Act or
with fine or with both. Further, recourse can be taken article 142 of the Constitution to inflict upon
him the punishment of the "pollution fine". But the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under
article 142 cannot be exercised where the issue can be settled only through the substantive provision
of the statute. However, Supreme Court has the power under Article 32 of the Constitution to award
"exemplary damages", which are different from ‘fine’, for causing pollution and environmental
degradation. The Supreme Court has clarified that "pollution fine" cannot be imposed unless there
has been a trial and a finding of the guilt of a person is established under the Act.

However, section 24(2) provides that where act or omissions constitute an offence punishable under
this Act and also under any other Act, then the offender shall be punished under other Act and not
under this Act.

This section reduces the deterrent effect of EPA as the offender will be punished under the other Act
which has lesser punishment. Further, only maximum penalty has been prescribed and no minimum
penalty has been mentioned.

15 (2000) 6 SCC 213

!19
 Offences By Companies And Government
Department
(SECTIONS 16—18)

Section 16 of EPA 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, then the company as well as the person directly in-
charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be
guilty and liable to punishment.

However, the person in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company is
not held liable if he proves:—
(i) that the offence was committed without his knowledge;
(ii) that he exercised all due diligence/care to prevent the commission of such offence;

If it is proved that the offence has been committed by the company with the consent, connivance, or
negligence of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, then such persons
are deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable for punishment.

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;
(b) that he exercised all due diligence/care to prevent the commission of the offence.

If it is proved that the offence has been committed by a government department with the consent, or
connivance, or negligience of an officer, other than the head of the department, then such an officer
shall be deemed guilty and liable for punishment.
!20
However, the Act provides protection for actions taken in good faith.

In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd.16 , Court made it clear that Directors/
Managers who were responsible for causing the pollution would be liable under section 16 of EPA.
They cannot be absolved on the basis that the complaint was filed long ago (17 years in this case)
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.

In Suo Motu v. Vatva Industries Asso.17 , it was held that the Pollution Control Board and its
officers are free and competent to take action against any person on violating any provisions of the
environmental laws. They need to wait for the direction of the court for taking action under the law.
In such a course of seeking directions from the court would amount to dereliction of duty.

Who Can Make The Complaint

(SECTION 19)

A complaint under this Act can be made by:

(i) the Central Government or any authority by that Government; or

(ii) A complaint under this Act can be made by any person who has given notice of not less than
sixty days of the alleged offence and of his intention to make complaint to the Central
Government or the authorized officer.

It is submitted that this section militates comprehensively against public participation in the
enforcement of the salutary provisions of the EPA. It puts an unnecessary obstacle in the way of the
community, moved by nationwide programmes of environmental protection and promotion, to take
efforts in this direction. Therefore, it is suggested that the requirement of sixty days' notice in
section 19 should be deleted altogether.

16 (2000) 3 SCC 745

17 AIR 2000 Guj. 33
!21
 Bar Of Jurisdiction
(SECTION 22)

The Act bars the civil courts from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any thing done or
action taken by the Central Government or other authority in exercise of powers and performance of
functions under this Act.

However, it may be pertinent to mention here that in India most of the cases concerning
environment have come before the courts in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under the writ
jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Power To Make Rules

(SECTION 25 & 26)

Section 25 of the EPA confers powers on the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out
the purposes of this Act. The Central Government in exercise of the powers under sections 3, 6, 8
read with section 25 has enacted various rules to protect the environment from pollution.
Some of the important rules enacted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are as under:
1. Hazardous Wastes(Management and Handling) Rules, 1989.
2. Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules,1989.
3. Hazardous Micro-organisms Rules, 1989.
4. The Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning Preparedness and Response) Rules,
1998.
5. Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,1998.
6. Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Uses Rules, 1999.
7. The Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
8. Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
9. The Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001.

Every Rule made under the EPA is required to be laid before each House of the Parliament, while it
is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions.

!22
From the above discussion it is evident that EPA is a very important piece of legislation. This being
a general legislation can cover all kinds of pollutions including noise pollution. However, there is a
scope for making improvements in this Act as well. For example, the Act prescribes the maximum
sentence, but no minimum sentence has been prescribed. It may happen that offender may get only
a minimum punishment and not the maximum. The result of this will be that deterrent effect of the
legislation is diluted. Also the emphasis in the Act is on criminal liability rather than on the civil
liability. Further, the Act does not has any incentive to the public for taking steps to bring the culprit
to books. The requirement of sixty days notice seems to be unnecessary for filing a complaint by a
private party. In spite of all this, it is a positive piece of legislation.

!23
 Bibliography
1. Jaswal, Dr. P.S., Environmental Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Reprint 2017
2. Leelakrishnan, P., Environmental Law in India, lexisNexis, 2nd reprint 2010
3. Bare Act, THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986
4. www.legalbites.in
5. www.helplinelaw.com

!24