The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is a pivotal piece of environmental legislation in India. It was the first law passed by the Indian Parliament that specifically focused on the issue of water pollution. The Act was introduced to promote the prevention and control of water pollution and to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Water Act of 1974, its key provisions, and its impact on environmental governance in India.

Historical Background

Before the enactment of the Water Act in 1974, India did not have a comprehensive legal framework to address water pollution. The growing industrialization and urbanization during the post-independence period led to severe environmental degradation, particularly the pollution of water bodies. The need for stringent regulations became evident as rivers and lakes across the country became increasingly polluted, affecting both human health and biodiversity.

The Water Act was enacted under Article 252 of the Indian Constitution, which allows Parliament to legislate on a matter in the State List if two or more states consent to it. Initially, 12 states consented, leading to the formation of this Act. The Act marked the beginning of a more structured approach to environmental management in India.

Objectives of the Water Act

The primary objectives of the Water Act, 1974 are:

1. Prevention and Control of Water Pollution: To ensure that pollutants are not discharged into water bodies, thereby preventing water pollution.
2. Maintaining and Restoring the Wholesomeness of Water: To take measures that ensure water is free from contaminants and is safe for various uses, including drinking, irrigation, and industrial purposes.
3. Establishment of Central and State Pollution Control Boards: To create specialized agencies tasked with enforcing the provisions of the Act and overseeing its implementation across India.

Key Provisions of the Water Act

The Water Act, 1974 comprises various sections that outline the duties, powers, and functions of the authorities, as well as penalties for non-compliance. Some of the key provisions include:

1. Establishment of Pollution Control Boards:
• Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB): The Act mandates the establishment of the CPCB at the national level. The CPCB is responsible for advising the Central Government on water pollution matters, coordinating activities of the State Boards, and providing technical assistance to states.
• State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs): Each state is required to establish its own Pollution Control Board. These boards are responsible for planning comprehensive programs for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the state.
2. Functions of the Boards:
• The CPCB and SPCBs are empowered to lay down standards for the discharge of pollutants into water bodies.
• They can inspect facilities and manufacturing processes to ensure compliance with prescribed standards.
• They are authorized to collect and disseminate information relating to water pollution and its prevention, and to promote research and development activities.
3. Regulation of Industrial Discharge:
• The Act mandates that any industry or operation that discharges effluents must obtain consent from the relevant State Pollution Control Board.
• The consent is granted based on compliance with effluent standards and the ability of the industry to treat its wastewater before discharge.
• Any violation of the conditions of consent or unauthorized discharge of pollutants can result in severe penalties.
4. Penalties for Non-Compliance:
• The Act prescribes penalties for various offenses, including imprisonment for a term that may extend to six years and fines. For continuing offenses, an additional fine is imposed for every day the violation continues.
• The Act also allows for the closure or prohibition of any industry, process, or operation if it is found to be in violation of the provisions of the Act.
5. Appeals and Legal Recourse:
• Any person aggrieved by an order of the State Board may appeal to an Appellate Authority constituted under the Act.
• The Act also provides for the establishment of Water Appellate Tribunals to hear appeals against decisions of the State Boards.

Implementation and Challenges

The implementation of the Water Act has had varying degrees of success across different states. Some of the key challenges include:

1. Inadequate Enforcement: Despite the stringent provisions of the Act, enforcement has often been weak due to lack of resources, technical expertise, and political will.
2. Industrial Resistance: Many industries, particularly small and medium enterprises, have resisted compliance with effluent standards due to the costs involved in setting up treatment plants.
3. Public Awareness: There is often a lack of public awareness about the provisions of the Act and the importance of preventing water pollution, which has hampered effective implementation.

Impact and Achievements

Despite the challenges, the Water Act, 1974 has had a significant impact on environmental governance in India:

1. Institutional Framework: The establishment of the CPCB and SPCBs has provided an institutional framework for addressing water pollution issues in a systematic manner.
2. Reduction in Pollution Levels: In some areas, there has been a marked reduction in pollution levels, particularly in rivers and lakes that were previously severely polluted.
3. Public Participation: The Act has also led to increased public participation in environmental management, with citizens and NGOs becoming more involved in monitoring and reporting pollution.

Major Cases Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, has been a critical tool in the Indian legal system for addressing water pollution. Several landmark cases have been adjudicated under this Act, contributing significantly to the development of environmental jurisprudence in India. Below are some of the major cases that have been pivotal in interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Water Act.

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – The Ganga Pollution Case- AIR 1988 SC 1037 

Background: This case is one of the most significant environmental cases in Indian history. M.C. Mehta, a notable activist and environmental lawyer, filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of India, seeking to prevent the pollution of the River Ganga by industrial and municipal waste.

Judgment: The Supreme Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution, issued several orders for the closure of polluting industries along the river and mandated the installation of effluent treatment plants. The Court held that industries discharging pollutants into water bodies must comply with the provisions of the Water Act and adhere to the prescribed standards.

Impact: This case set a precedent for stringent action against industries polluting water bodies and emphasized the importance of clean and safe water as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution.

2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) – The Bichhri Village Case- AIR 1996 SC 1446 

Background: This case involved the discharge of untreated toxic waste by chemical industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan. The waste had severely contaminated the soil and groundwater, causing widespread health problems and environmental degradation.

Judgment: The Supreme Court invoked the "polluter pays" principle, directing the offending industries to bear the cost of remediation and compensate the affected villagers. The Court also reinforced the responsibility of the State Pollution Control Boards to monitor and regulate industrial discharges in compliance with the Water Act.

Impact: The judgment underscored the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws and established the principle that polluters are financially liable for the damage they cause to the environment.

3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) – The Tanneries Case- AIR 1996 SC 2715 

Background: This case was filed against tanneries in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, which were discharging untreated effluents into the Palar River, a crucial source of drinking water for the region. The pollution had made the river water unsafe for consumption and adversely affected agriculture in the surrounding areas.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ordered the closure of non-compliant tanneries and directed the installation of common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) for the remaining industries. The Court also established the principle of sustainable development and reiterated the "polluter pays" principle.

Impact: This case is significant for its emphasis on balancing environmental protection with industrial development and for highlighting the role of the judiciary in enforcing environmental laws like the Water Act.

4. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) – The Kolleru Lake Case- AIR 1999 SC 812 

Background: The case arose from the pollution of Kolleru Lake, a freshwater lake in Andhra Pradesh, caused by industrial effluents and agricultural runoff. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board sought to take action against the polluters, but the case brought up issues related to the proper interpretation and implementation of the Water Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court highlighted the need for scientific expertise in environmental cases and directed the establishment of expert committees to assist in decision-making. The Court also emphasized the precautionary principle and the importance of maintaining ecological balance.

Impact: This case reinforced the need for scientific inputs in environmental litigation and underscored the importance of the precautionary principle in preventing environmental degradation.

5. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) – The Shrimp Farming Case- AIR 1997 SC 811

Background: The case concerned the impact of intensive shrimp farming on coastal ecosystems, particularly the contamination of groundwater and surface water due to the discharge of untreated waste from shrimp farms.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that shrimp farming operations within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were in violation of the Water Act, and directed the closure of non-compliant shrimp farms. The Court also mandated the restoration of the affected coastal areas.

Impact: This case is important for its focus on the environmental impact of aquaculture and for its interpretation of the Water Act in the context of protecting coastal ecosystems.

6. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013)- (2013) 4 SCC 575

Background: This case involved the Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu, which was accused of discharging harmful effluents into the environment, causing air and water pollution.

Judgment: The Supreme Court imposed a fine on Sterlite Industries for environmental damage, while also highlighting the lapses of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in effectively monitoring and enforcing the Water Act's provisions.

Impact: The case emphasized the accountability of both industries and regulatory bodies in adhering to environmental laws, reinforcing the importance of vigilance and compliance. 

Conclusion

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, represents a landmark in India's environmental legislation. It laid the foundation for a more structured and comprehensive approach to tackling water pollution and has contributed significantly to raising awareness about the importance of protecting water resources. However, the success of the Act largely depends on the commitment of both the government and the public to its implementation. As India continues to grapple with the challenges of water pollution, the principles and provisions of the Water Act remain as relevant today as they were over four decades ago.

Share this News