Environment Protection Act Rendered Toothless Due To Centre's Inaction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 23) observed that the section 15 of the Environment Protection Act has been rendered “toothless” due to the Centre's inaction after the 2023 Jan Vishwas Amendment which replaced punishment for violation of the Act with penalties.

“This provision has been rendered completely ineffective due to inaction on the part of Government of India…In the absence of machinery created by the government of India, Section 15 as amended has become toothless and there is nothing in the hands of law enforcement authorities to strictly enforce the provisions of EPA. Therefore, those who violate the laws are now scot-free as no action can be taken against them. Learned ASG assures the court that within two weeks, entire machinery will be in existence”, the Court observed in its order.

The Court also criticised the Commissioner of Air Quality Management (CAQM) for merely sending show cause notices to officers that have violated its orders regarding stubble burning instead of prosecuting them under section 14 of the CAQM Act.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR, specifically focusing on stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.

Criticising the failure of both states and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to take penal action against violators, the Court last week had summoned the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana.

The bench noted again today that there was no prosecution under the CAQM Act for violation of CAQM order date June 10, 2021 regarding stubble burning.

Action Against Farmers

The questioned the Union of India's failure to implement an effective machinery under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1986. Justice Oka remarked that the EPA had become “toothless” following the amendment to Section 15, which replaced punishment for violation of the Act with penalties.

Justice Oka pointed out that the procedure to impose penalties under the amended section had not been operationalized. The Union Government had failed to frame Rules to support the section and appoint adjudicating officers under section 15C to impose these penalties, leaving law enforcement agencies powerless, the Court observed.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assured the Court that Section 15 of EPA would be fully operationalized within 10 days.

Prosecution of Officials

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the CAQM has issued show cause notices to officers of both Punjab and Haryana including the Secretary of Environment, Additional chief secretary agriculture etc.

Justice Oka responded, “That is what is troubling. Who is going to bother about show cause notices? Law permits you to prosecute, our orders show that there is persistent failure on their part to comply with CAQM order. Yet you are simply issuing notice instead of prosecuting. They will file bulky reply, you will keep giving them hearings and that will give an opportunity to them to challenge those orders.”

Rates of Environmental Compensation

The bench questioned CAQM had not exercised its power under Section 15 of the CAQM Act to determine proper environmental compensation rates. The Court held that the CAQM must frame rules under Section 15 of the CAQM Act to prescribe appropriate compensation rates, and should not merely rely on the formula set by the National Green Tribunal.

“Under section 15 of the CAQM Act it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the commission to impose and collect environment compensation from the farmers causing air pollution through stubble burning at such rate and such matter as may be prescribed…Importance of Section 15 has to be understood in the context of proviso to section 14(1) which excludes farmers from applicability of penal provisions. When such a concession is given to the farmers, proper power has to be exercised by the Commission under Section 15 by framing rules and providing appropriate environmental compensation rates”, the Court held.

Sub-committee on Monitoring and Enforcement

The Court underscored the importance of coordinated efforts between the CAQM and state authorities, noting that the monitoring committee, which is responsible for implementing the Commission's orders is not functioning properly due to absenteeism among its members. The Union of India assured the Court that action would be taken to replace members who were persistently absent from meetings.

Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh pointed out that despite repeated directions from the Court, little progress had been made on the ground.

“She is right in submitting that despite the orders passed by this court every year at the grassroots level there is no change. We fully agree with her and we put all concerned to notice that stricter action will have to be taken against those responsible for violations”, the Court observed.

The Court set a two-week deadline for the Union of India to amend the rules and provide proper rates of environmental compensation under Section 15 of the CAQM Act.

Apart from this, the Court directed Centre as well as the Governments of NCR states to file compliance reports of Court's earlier orders on other causes of pollution in Delhi – waste burning, transport pollution, pollution from heavy trucks, and industrial pollution.

The matter was listed for further hearing on November 4, 2024.

Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India