ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES
India has in place certain laws and statues that are enacted with the sole objective of protecting the environment and ensuring obedience to such laws and regulations. Originally, environmental wrongs were not seen as a criminal act but with time and given the current state of environmental crisis that the global world is facing, it becomes of prime importance that proper and stricter laws are put in place in order to deter the harming actions of the society. Interestingly, the legislature has enacted several laws aimed at protecting the environment for example the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (enacted in the aftermath of Bhopal Gas tragedy), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act of 1977, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, etc.
PENAL PROVISIONS-
Chapter XIV of IPC jots all the offences pertaining to public health and safety. Sec. 268 IPC encompasses a lot of criminal acts including the offences against the environment; its penalizing section being section 290 IPC. Interestingly, the resultant penalty is just for Rs. 200 which is highly negligible and non-deterring.
In K. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerela, smoking in public places was named an act of public nuisance which is punishable under the IPC.
Section 277 IPC i.e. Fouling water of public spring or reservoir provides for imprisonment for 3 months or fine of Rs. 500 or both. Interestingly, the interpretation of some of the terms used in this section has been done so narrowly by the courts that running water of rivers, streams, canals, etc. has been excluded from the purview of this section. Section 278 IPC i.e. whereby any person making Atmosphere noxious to health is imposed a fine upto Rs. 500. Moreover, a lot of environmental crimes fall under the category of Criminal Mischief by way of section 425 given in section 426,430,431,432 of IPC.
Chapter X CrPC i.e. Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity is relevant. This chapter by way of its various sections provides for preventive and mitigating measures for the cases of public nuisance that relate to water, air, soil and unsanitary/unhygienic conditions. But this power does not seem to have used to its full potential in the cases of environment protection.
There are a few other penal provisions to be found in other acts. For instance, section 47 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 imposes vicarious liability on the Incharge of a company for an offence committed by a company; also, section 16 of The Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 is similar to section 47 of the The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Environment crimes has become such a crime internationally that it is believed that any culprit can run Scott-free from his/her actions. We need to have in place stronger and more stringent laws in place. We need laws that impose accountability and facilitate the finding of the person who is the real culprit behind these environmental crimes. The bottom line is that the current provisions in place are inadequate as since violation of these provisions attracts a meagre amount of penalty which in most cases would deter the prosecution from initiating any proceedings at all in the first place.
REFERENCES
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. K. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerela, AIR 1999 Ker 385
4. Govind Singh v. Shanti Sarup 1979 AIR 143