INTRODUCTION

Humans have developed and have been developing at a very fast pace but with this pace humans have
forgotten the importance of nature is their lives. Environment is the wellspring of life on earth like
water, air, soil, etc., and determines the presence, development and improvement of humanity and all
its activities. The concept of ecological protection and preservation is not new. It has been intrinsic to
many ancient civilizations. Ancient India texts highlights that it is the dharma of each individual in the
society to protect nature and the term ‘nature’ includes land, water, trees and animals which are of
great importance to us.

DEFINATION
“The word “environment” relates to surroundings. It includes virtually everything. It can be can
defined as anything which may be treated as covering the physical surroundings that are common to
all of us, including air, space, land, water, plants and wildlife”
“According to the Webster Dictionary, it is defined as the “Aggregate of all the external condition and
influences affecting the life and development of an organism.”
“The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 2(a) environment “includes water, air and 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.”
NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In the hour of continuous industrialization and globalization, no one can overlook the damage which
is being caused Day to day innovation and advancement of technology, apart from development
additionally expands the risk to human life. Accordingly, there arises an intense and an acute need of
the law to keep pace with the need of the society along with individuals. So now the question of
environmental protection is a matter of worldwide concern, it is not confined to any country or
territory.

LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN INDIA

 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
 Biological Diversity Act, 2002
 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
 Forest Conservation Act, 1980
 Indian Forest Act, 1927
 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001
 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
 The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006
 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1974
 Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002
 Wildlife Protection Act of 1972
 Noise Pollution rule
 Hazardous waste Handling and management act, 1989
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The Indian Constitution is amongst the few in the world that contains specific provisions on
environment protection. The chapters directive principles of state policy and the fundamental duties
are explicitly enunciated the nation commitment to protect and improve the environment. It was the
first time when responsibility of protection of the environment imposed upon the states through
Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

Article 48-A[5] the provision reads as follows: “The State shall endeavour(TO TRY HARD) to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.”
The Amendment also inserted Part VI-A (Fundamental duty) in the Constitution, which reads as
follows:

Article 51-A (g) “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creature.”
In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court observed “whenever a problem of
ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A and Article 51-A
(g).

WATER POLLUTION ACT

After the Stockholm conference on Human Environment on June,

1972, it was considered appropriate to have uniform law all over
country for broad Environment problems endangering the health and
safety of our people as well as of our flora and fauna. The Water
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is the first enactment
by the Parliament in this direction. This is also the first specific and
comprehensive legislation institutionalizing simultaneously the
regulatory agencies for controlling water pollution. The Pollution
Control Board at the Centre and in the State came into being in terms
of this Act. According to the Article 51 A (g) it is the fundamental
duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment included Forest, Lakes, Rivers and Wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. Water Act is enacted with the aim of
prevention and control of Water Pollution in India. Pollution means
contamination of water or such alteration of the Physical, Chemical or
Biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or
trade effluent or of any other liquid, gas and Solid substance into
water (whether directly or indirectly) as may be the case or is likely to
create nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public
health or safety or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or
other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plant or of
aquatic organizations. Trade effluent includes any liquid or solid
substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on
any industry operation or process or treatment and disposal system,
other domestic sewage. This Act aims at establishment of Central and
State Pollution Control Board at the central level and also at state
level for each state and giving powers to the members so as to enable
them to carry out the purposes of the Act. Board is having 17
members to carry out the said purposes and the functions of the
Board.
The main objectives of the Water Act are

(A)To provide for prevention, control and abatement of water

pollution.
(B) the maintenance or restoration of the wholesomeness of
water.
(C) To assess pollution levels and
punish polluters. E boards to carry out the objectives of the
act.
(D)To confer on and assign to the boards, the power, and
functions relating prevention and control of water
pollution.
(E)To penalize contravention of the provisions of the ct.
(F)To deal with matters connected with the prevention and
control of water pollution.
(G)To establish central and state water testing laboratories to
enable boards to discharge their functions.

The Central Government and State Government have set

up PCBs to monitor water pollution.
In A.P. Pollution Control Boardv. M.V. Nayudu,(2001) 2 SCC 69
SC PROVIDE A VERY VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY UNDER THE VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

Functions of the State Board

Section 17 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 clearly lists all functions of the respective state boards for countering
water pollution. The state board of respective states is empowered to plan
a comprehensive program for the prevention, control or abatement of
pollution of streams and wells, collect and disseminate information relating
to water pollution and encourage, conduct and participate in investigations
and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention.
The state water boards also have the right to inspect sewage or trade
effluents, works and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade effluents
and to review all water purification plants. The Board may establish or
recognize a laboratory or laboratories to enable the Board to perform its
functions under this section efficiently, including the analysis of samples of
water from any stream or well or of samples of any sewage or trade
effluents.
Consent of the State Board is necessary to discharge sewage
Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 states
that Prior Consent of the State Board under section 25 is necessary to set
up any industry, plant or process which is likely to discharge sewage or
trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land or bring into use any
new or altered outlets for the discharge of sewage or begin to make any
new discharge of sewage. The section further states that every State Board
is liable to maintain a register containing particulars or conditions imposed
under the section related to any outlet, or to any effluent, from any land or
premises which must be open to inspection by the state board.
Power to take emergency measures
Section 32 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
describes the power to take emergency measures in case of pollution of
stream or well. Under the act, State Board may issue orders to re move the
matter, which is, or may cause pollution; or remedy or mitigate the
pollution, or issue prohibition orders to the concerned persons from
discharging any poisonous or noxious or polluting matter.
Section 24 and 43 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 relate to prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting
matter and penalty for contravention thereof Under the scope of the
provision, no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous,
noxious or polluting mater as determined by the State Board to enter into
any stream or sewer or on land. Anyone failing to abide by the laws of
under is liable for imprisonment under Section 24 & Section 43 ranging
from not less than one year and six months to six years along with
monetary fines. The section further states that No person shall knowingly
cause or permit to enter any other matter which may impede the flow of
water of the stream causing pollution of any kind.
Penalties and fines
Section 42 of the of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
states penalties and fines for certain acts including pulling down pillars,
Obstructs any person acting under the orders or direction of the Board,
Damages any works or property belonging to the Board and Failure to
furnish any officer other employee of the Board any information required.
The fine and penalty includes Imprisonment for a term which may extend
up to three months or with fine to Rs. 10,000/- or both.
Understanding Water Class
Depending on the pollution of the water, water is demarked under various
water classes in accordance with the Water (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974. Drinking water at source found without conventional
treatment but after disinfection is designated as Class A while water
designated for outdoor bathing comes under Class B. Any drinking water
source which has been conventionally treated comes under Class C while
water used for propagation of wildlife and fisheries is demarked as Class D.
Water under Class E is used for irrigation and industrial cooling along with
waste disposal.
Some Key Points of Water Act 1974
 Water Act 1974 aims to prevent and control water pollution.

 Under Water Act, 1974, pollution control boards were created, who
are responsible for implementation of its provisions.
 One of the important provision of the Water Act, 1974 is to maintain
and restore the ‘wholesomeness’ of our aquatic resources.
 Under Water Act 1974, Sewage or pollutants cannot be discharged
into water bodies including lakes and it is the duty of the state
pollution control board to intervene and stop such activity.
 Anyone failing to abide by the laws of under is liable for imprisonment
under Section 24 & Section 43 ranging from not less than one year
and six months to six years along with monetary fines.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AREAS

According to Section 19 of the Act, the state board has the power to
limit the territorial jurisdiction of any order passed by it in matters
relating to prevention and controlling water pollution. This means
that the orders passed by the state board will only apply in the
areas that are affected by water pollution .it is up to the state board
to determine which area is to be declared water polluted and which
is not, this can be done by making reference to a map or making
reference to a line of any watershed or the boundary of any district.

SAMPLE OF EFFLUENTS PROCEDURES, RESTRAINT ORDER

21. Power to Take Samples of Effluents and Procedure to be

Followed in Connection Therewith.

(1) A State Board or any officer empowered by it in this behalf shall have
power to take for the purpose of analysis samples of water from any
stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade effluent which is
passing from any plant or vessel or from or over any place into any such
stream or well.

(2) The result of any analysis of a sample of any sewage or trade

effluent taken under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible in evidence
in any legal proceeding unless the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and
(5) are complied with.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5), when a sample
(composite or otherwise as may be warranted by the process used) of
any sewage or trade effluent is taken for analysis under sub-section (1),
the person taking the sample shall -

(a) serve on the person in charge of, or having control over, the plant or
vessel or in occupation of the place (which person is hereinafter referred
to as the occupier) or any agent of such occupier, a notice, then and
there in such form as may be prescribed of his intention to have it so
analyzed;

(b) in the presence of the occupier or his agent, divide the sample into
two parts;

(c) cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be marked

and sealed and shall also be signed both by the person taking the
sample and the occupier or his agent;

(d) send one container forthwith, -

(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any area situated in a
Union territory, to the laboratory established or recognized by the Central
Board under section 16; and

(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or recognized by the

State Board under section 17;

(e) on the request of the occupier or his agent; send the second
container, -

(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any area situated in a
Union territory, to the laboratory established or specified under sub-
section (1) of section 51; and

(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or specified under

sub-section (1) of section 52.

(4) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent is taken for analysis
under sub-section (1) and the person taking the sample serves on the
occupier or his agent, a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (3) and
the occupier or his agent willfully absents himself. then, -

(a) the sample so taken shall be placed in a container which shall be

marked and sealed and shall also be signed by the person taking the
sample and the same shall be sent forthwith by such person for analysis
to the laboratory referred to in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), as he
case may be, of clause (e) of sub-section (3) and such person shall
inform the Government analyst appointed under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), as the case may be, of section 53, in writing about the willful
absence of the occupier or his agent;

(b) the cost incurred in getting such sample analyzed shall be payable by
the occupier or his agent and in case of default of such payment, the
same shall be recoverable from the occupier or his agent, as the case
may be, as an arrear of land revenue or of public demand :

Provided that no such recovery shall be made unless the occupier or,

as the case may be, his agent has been given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard in the matter.

(5) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent is taken for analysis
under sub-section (1) and the person taking the sample serves on the
occupier or his agent a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (3) and the
occupier or his agent who is present at the time of taking the sample
does not make a request for dividing the sample into two parts as
provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3), then, the sample so taken shall
be placed in a container which shall be marked and sealed and shall
also be signed by the person taking the sample and the same shall be
sent forthwith by such person for analysis to the laboratory referred to in
sub-clause (i), or sub-clause (ii), as the case may be, of clause (d) of
sub-section (3).

CONSENT REQUIREMENT PROCEDURE GRANT/REFUSAL,WITHRAWAL

27. Refusal or Withdrawal of Consent by State Board.

(1) A State Board shall not grant its consent under sub-section (4) of
section 25 for the establishment of any industry, operation or process, or
treatment and disposal system or extension or addition thereto, or to the
bringing into use of a new or altered outlet unless the industry, operation
or process, or treatment and disposal system or extension or addition
thereto, or the outlet is so established as to comply with any conditions
imposed by the Board to enable it to exercise its right to take samples of
the effluent

(2) A State Board may from time to time review -

(a) any condition imposed under section 25 or section 26 and may serve
on the person to whom a consent under section 25 or section 26 is
granted a notice making any reasonable variation of revoking any such
condition.

(b) the refusal of any consent referred to in sub-section (1) of section 25

or section 26 or the grant of such consent without any condition, any
may make such order as it deems fit.

(3) Any condition imposed under section 25 or section 26 shall be

subject to any variation made under sub-section (2) and shall continue in
force until revoked under that sub-section.

CITIZEN SUIT

It is a lawsuit by a private citizen to enforce a statute. It is particularly common

in the field of environmental law.
 Citizen suits come in three ways. Firstly, an individual citizen can bring a suit
against a citizen,

corporation,

or government body for engaging in conduct which the statute prohibits.

 For example, a citizen can bring a suit against the corporation under this act for illegally polluting
a waterbody. Secondly, a private citizen can sue a government body for failing to perform a non-
discretionary duty. For instance, a private citizen can file a complaint against the Environmental
Protection Agency for failing to promulgate (to officially announce new law or system) regulations
that the act required it to promulgate. In third situation which is a less common form, citizens may
file a complaint appealing to the court to grant an injunction to abate a potential imminent and
substantial endangerment involving generation, disposal or handling of waste, regardless of
whether or not the defendant’s conduct violates a statutory prohibition. This third type of citizen
suit is analogous to the common law tort of public nuisance.

Citizen suit provision under the environment protection act,1986-

Untill the enactment of the environment act, the power to prosecute under Indian environmental
laws belonged exclusively to the government.

The citizens suit provision in the environment act expands the concept of locus standi in
environmental prosecutions.

Similar provisions allowing citizens participation in the enforcement of pollution laws are now
found in

(a) Sec 43(11) of the Air Act (as amended in 1987) and
(b) Sec 49(12) of the water act (as amended in 1988)

The citizen suit provision appears to give the public significant powers to enforce the
environment act.

(c) Section 19(13) of the environment act provides that any person, in addition to authorized
government officials may file a complaint with a court alleging an offence under the act.
However, the person must have given notice of not less than 60 days of the alleged
offence and the intent to file a complaint with the government official authorized to make
such complaints.

RTI and PIL – tools in the hands of public

Majority of cases before the court are writ petitions, by individuals acting on a pro bono (for public
good) basis.  PIL is a result of the relaxation of the locus standi(legal capacity to sue or approach
courts) rules while departing from the “proof of injury” approach These cases are concerned with
the rights of the community as a whole rather than an individual. In cases of water pollution the
PIL was first used in the case of Ratlam municipal Corporation v. Vardhichand where the Supreme
Court had introduced the concept of PIL for the first time and had stated that a responsible
Municipal Council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health, cannot run away
from its principal duty by pleading financial inability.

Right to information which is a fundamental right flowing from article 19(1) (a) of the constitution
has been recognized by the supreme court in the environmental laws. The way to lodge a
complaint against water pollution appears to be quite simple. A person can file a petition obtaining
documents on the suspect industries under the right of information provision and then file a PIL
under article 32 and 224 of the constitution in the appellate courts seeking the remedy and
prosecuting the pollutants.

 But this is not as simple as it appears to be. The procedure is quite complicated and costly. Firstly
the RTI gets trapped in the procedural aspects. If we file an RTI to the pollution control board for
obtaining information against any pollutant firm the PCB can deny giving such information under
section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence act if it thinks it is in national interest to do so. Also
placing a PIL needs a sum of 50,000 to be deposited in the high court and 1 lakh in the Supreme
Court which is forfeited if you lose.
The judicial gateway for a common man to curb water pollution is limited to filling of PILs, public
hearings, and under Citizen’s suits. It appears as if the citizens have been excluded explicitly from
prosecuting the polluters. The remedies which are available also have many loopholes which are
exploited by the polluters to get away with the punishment for environmental crimes. [9] The law
needs to be more in favor of allowing the citizens to sue the water polluters as they have a better
knowledge of the water pollution in their locality.

Hope for Speedy justice in cases of water pollution after the

establishment of National Green Tribunal (NGT)
In 2010 after the enactment of national green tribunal act the cases relating to the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess(tax on tax) Act, 1977 amended 2003 were transferred to the NGT. This was to
ensure that the speedy trial of the cases related to environment degradation takes place. Now if a
person has to file a case regarding water pollution he should approach the NGT which has been
specifically made for the purpose of dealing with issues of this kind. The civil court has now lost its
right to admit complaint regarding this issue. The rules of filing the complaint remains the same
and there is no amendment in the procedure and the evidence required for the cases relating to
water pollution. The NGT has insured only speedy trial for cases of pollution and environmental
degradation but there is a need for reformatory changes in order to encourage more and more
citizens to turn up for filling complaint against the water pollution. The sample given by citizens
regarding water pollution should be accepted by the NGT to prevent the polluters take advantage
of the loop hole in the procedure.

Samit Mehta Vs. Union of India – case Of Marine pollution due to ship sinking
(water pollution case)

An environmentalist – Samit Mehta had filed application regarding the damage

caused by the sinking of ship which was carrying fuel oil, coal and diesel. Due to
sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of sea causing damage to the
marine ecosystem. The tribunal has further held that it is the big negligence on the
part of respondent and upholds the principle of ‘polluter pay’ and ‘precautionary
principle.’

Judgment: National Green Tribunal held that ship sinking accident has led to the
marine pollution. Therefore, environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was
imposed. It is one of the biggest compensation ever made by the private entity to
Government.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) AND CITIZEN SUIT

PROVISION
The basic difference between PIL and the citizen suit provision is that a PIL is a much broader
concept that the citizen suit provision also citizen suit provision is governed by the respective acts and
is not a matter of right while moving to the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be barred.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL) is permitted by the Supreme Court
and High Courts under writ jurisdiction at the instance of public spirited citizens for the enforcement
of constitutional and other legal rights of any person or groups of persons who because of their
disadvantageous position are unable to approach the court for relief. The Supreme Court under Article
32 and the High Courts under Article 226 can be moved by any public spirited citizen or by NGOs for
the prevention of environmental pollution.
The Environment (Protection) Act, provided for the first time in 1986, citizen suit provisions in the
lower courts. Under Section 19 of the Act, a citizen may prosecute a polluter by filing a complaint to a
Judicial Magistrate Court. It can be done after giving 60 days’ notice to the State Pollution Control
Board of his or her intention to the file a case. Hitherto (until now), only the government could file a
case. Later, similar provisions have been provided under Section 43 of the Air Act, 1981 and Section
49 of the Water Act, 1974, by way of amendments. All these provisions make it mandatory for the
pollution control boards to disclose all relevant internal reports to a person who intends to prosecute
the polluter.

Citizen Suit Provision under Various

Environmental Legislations

CITIZEN SUIT PROVISION- MEANING

A citizen suit is a lawsuit by a private citizen to enforce a statute.Citizen suits are particularly
common in the field of environmental law. Citizen suits come in three forms. First, a private citizen
can bring a lawsuit against a citizen, corporation, or government body for engaging in conduct
prohibited by the statute. Second, a private citizen can bring a lawsuit against a government body for
failing to perform a non-discretionary duty. “This third type of citizen suit is analogous to the
common law tort of public nuisance”
CITIZEN SUIT PROVISION IN INDIA
The legal remedies available to the citizens with regards to Water pollution in India are limited as
compared to countries like US, UK, Canada and Australia and are still in a developing phase. It was in
the year 1986 after the coming of Environmental protection act that a citizen got the right to file a
complaint under section 19 of the EPA and prosecute the polluter. But this is subjected to restriction
that a pollution control board sample is only admissible by the court and the sample given by citizen
unlike in U.S. was not admissible. In India, therefore you have to first complain to the PCBs
(pollution control board) and cannot directly approach the court. Moreover a 6-month prior notice has
to be given before filing the suit which gives ample time to the polluter to get way with the crime. By
amendments later in the water act 1974 it has been made mandatory for the PCBs to disclose all
relevant information which is needed by person filing suit against any pollutant.

The Environment Protection Act, 1986-Though there is a host of legislation in India aimed at
protecting the environment from pollution and maintaining the ecological balance, the environment
has not so far been considered in its totality. The Environment 106 (Protection) Act, 1986, enacted
under Art. 253 of the Constitution of India to implement the decisions made at the United Nations
Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm, 1972 was expected to fill the lacuna and
provide a blue print for a progressive policy for protecting the ecosystem. The Act seeks to
supplement the existing laws on control of pollution by enacting a general legislation for
environmental protection and to fill the gaps in regulations of major environmental hazards.

Citizen suit provision under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Until the enactment of the
Environment Act, the power to prosecute under Indian environmental laws belonged exclusively to
the government. The citizens‟ suit provision in the Environment Act expands the concept of locus
standi in environmental prosecutions.

Similar provisions allowing citizens participation in the enforcement of pollution laws are now found
in Sec.43 of the Air Act(as amended in 1987) and Sec.49 of the Water Act(as amended in 1988). Sec.
19 of the Environment Act provides that any person, in addition to authorized government officials,
may file a complaint with a court alleging an offence under the Act. However, the person must have
given notice of not less than 60 days of the alleged offence and the intent to file a complaint with the
government official authorized to make such complaints. The citizens‟ suit provision appears to give
the public significant powers to enforce the Environment Act. However, some critics are of the view
that during the 60 days’ notice period required for the government to decide whether to proceed
against the alleged violation, the offending industry has time to clean up traces of the offence and
prepare itself for the collection of samples. Further, the government may file a complaint but does not
pursue prosecution diligently. There are no rules which require the publishing of information by
polluters. The Act allowed, but does not require, the Central the Act from any person, officer, State
Government or other authority. The citizens‟ suit provision may become an effective enforcement
tool if industries were required to make mandatory public reports concerning their pollutant emissions
and discharges.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) AND CITIZEN SUIT

PROVISION
The basic difference between PIL and the citizen suit provision is that a PIL is a much broader
concept that the citizen suit provision also citizen suit provision is governed by the respective acts and
is not a matter of right while moving to the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be barred.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL) is permitted by the Supreme Court
and High Courts under writ jurisdiction at the instance of public spirited citizens for the enforcement
of constitutional and other legal rights of any person or groups of persons who because of their
disadvantageous position are unable to approach the court for relief. The Supreme Court under Article
32 and the High Courts under Article 226 can be moved by any public spirited citizen or by NGOs for
the prevention of environmental pollution.

SITUTION BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF CITIZEN SUIT PROVISION IN

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIONS
The concept of citizen suit provision as stated earlier was not a part of the original Act which was
passed by the parliament. Although it was felt that the board had been given way too much power by
the legislature and people who are ultimately affected must have a locus standi in such cases.
Before the legislature passed the amendment including the provision of citizen suit provision various
there alternatives were available to the public to raise an action in case of environment pollution.

 The remedies available in India for environmental protection comprise of tortuous as well as
statutory law remedies. The tortuous remedies available are trespass(It connotes failure to exercise
the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances), nuisance, strict
liability (The rule enunciated in Rylands v. Fletcher by Blackburn J. is that the person who for his
own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to be a mischief, if it
escapes, must keep it as its peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie even though, he will be
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The doctrine of
strict liability has considerable utility in environmental pollution cases especially cases dealing
with the harm caused by the leakage of hazardous substances) and negligence.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in instant case is a land mark in the history of judicial activism in
upholding the social justice component of the rule of law by fixing liability on statutory authorities to
discharge their legal obligation to the people in abating public nuisance and making the environmental
pollution free even if there is a budgetary constraints., J. Krishna Iyer observed that,” social justice is
due to and therefore the people must be able to trigger off the jurisdiction vested for their benefit to
any public functioning.” Thus he recognized PIL as a Constitutional obligation of the courts

AIR ACT 1981

Why was this act passed?

 The effects of climate change caused by all forms of pollution became all
too apparent in the early 1970s. To mitigate their harmful effects it was
believed that nations would need to pass their own laws. Thus during
the UNITED ATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY on Human Environment held in
 Stockholm in june 1972, a resolution was passed which implored the
nations of tHe world to preserve natural resources such as air.
 India itself had the issues regarding air pollution due to wide variety of
factors such as STUBBLE BURNING improper industrial practices,
environmental factors etc., To combat these factors a special laws was
enacted under CONSTI OF INDIA, which was Air (p and c of p ) act 1981.

COMPOSITION POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OG CENTRAL P C B

 The cpcb would have a chairman with crucial knowledge regarding
environmental protection . He/she would be aided by a secretary
appointed by the central gov. In addition , 5 more members would
be nominated by the CG.
 The function are as follows
 The CPCB would take measures to mitigate the harmful effects of
air pollution in india and make recommendations to the gov. on
how such steps can be taken.
 The board will lead technical assistance to in carrying out research
relating to air pollution.
 The board would create and publish data about air pollution and
prepare guidelines to on how to effectively reduce air pollution.

CONTROL AREAS

 The CPCB can declare an area pollution area after consulatation

with the state gov.
 THE CENTRAL AS WELL AS THE STATE PCB, HAVE THE POWER TO
prohibit the sale or use of any fuel that may cause air pollution.
 Power to give restrictions for ensuring standards for emissions
from automobile.
 Restrictions on use of certain industrial plants.
 The air empowers the state and cpcb to carry out inspection of
equipment, industrial plants and other object which is believedto
be the cause of air pollution. The person in charge will have to
assist the board in their inspection and in refusing to do so will be
considered an offence.

PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE UNDER THIS ACT

 The failure to comply with the cpcb directives would result
in imprisonment of 1 year. It can be extended to 6 years
with a fine with additional fine of 5000rs per day added
provided the directives are still not met.
 Any environmental complaint will only be taken into
consideration be a court if it is made by the following:
 An officer authorised by the CPCB
 A person who has made a complaint to the board or an
officer authorised by it. The complaint must be made within
60 days of the offence committed.