Pollution Related Laws

Why Pollution-Specific Laws Were Needed?

Once environmental protection entered the Constitution, the next natural question was:

How do we control pollution on the ground?

General principles were not enough. India needed sector-wise, enforceable laws dealing specifically with:

• Water pollution
• Air pollution
• Industrial waste
• Urban and industrial emissions

This led to the creation of pollution-specific legislations.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

(a) Objective and Scope

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was India’s first comprehensive pollution-control law.

Its core objectives are:

• To prevent and control water pollution
• To maintain wholesomeness of water
• To protect rivers, streams, wells, lakes, groundwater, and coastal waters

👉 In simple words: No economic activity should make water unfit for human, agricultural, or ecological use.

(b) Creation of Pollution Control Boards

This Act led to the creation of two powerful institutions:

• Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
• State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)

These Boards are statutory bodies, not advisory committees.

📌 Their role is regulatory + enforcement, not just monitoring.

(c) Powers of CPCB and SPCBs

The Act empowers these Boards to:

• Lay down water quality standards
• Monitor pollution levels
• Inspect industrial units
• Restrict or prohibit discharge of pollutants

Thus, pollution control moved from policy intention to legal enforcement.

(d) Consent Mechanism: The Heart of the Act

One of the most important concepts for UPSC is the Consent Regime.

Two-stage consent system:

1. Consent to Establish (CTE)
   • Required before setting up an industry or local body
2. Consent to Operate (CTO)
   • Required after pollution-control facilities are installed

📌 This applies to:

• Industries
• Local bodies
• Sewage treatment plants
• Effluent discharging units

Even pre-existing industries were brought under this framework.

(e) Amendments of 1978 and 1988

The Act was amended to:

• Remove ambiguities
• Strengthen enforcement powers
• Vest greater authority in Pollution Control Boards

This shows how environmental law evolved with experience.

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

Let us now clearly understand the institutional backbone.

(a) Legal Status

• CPCB is a statutory organization under Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
• Constituted in 1974 under the Water Act
• Given additional powers under:
  • Air Act, 1981
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

(b) Core Functions of CPCB

Its two principal functions are:

1. Water Pollution Control
   • Promote cleanliness of streams and wells
2. Air Pollution Control
   • Improve air quality and reduce emissions

(c) Monitoring Role

CPCB oversees national monitoring programmes such as:

• National Air Monitoring Programme (NAMP)
• Water Quality Monitoring (WQM)

📌 CPCB is therefore regulator + technical advisor + national monitor.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024

 First of all, let me ask you a question: Why Can Parliament Amend a “State Subject”?

Water as a State Subject

• Water falls under the State List of the Constitution.
• Hence, States normally have exclusive legislative power over water-related matters.

Then how did Parliament step in?

This happens through Article 252 of the Constitution

👉 Article 252 allows Parliament to legislate on a State subject IF:

1. Two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions, requesting Parliament to do so.
2. The law then:
   • Applies only to those States that passed the resolution
   • Can be adopted later by other States
   • Can be amended or repealed only by Parliament

Comparison w.r.t Water Act, 1974

Aspect	Water Act, 1974	Water Amendment Act, 2024
Chairman of SPCB	Nominated by the State Government	Central Government prescribes nomination process and service conditions
Consent Exemptions for Industries	States could exempt certain industries and issue guidelines	Central Government, in consultation with CPCB, may grant exemptions and issue consent-related guidelines
Penalty for Offences	Imprisonment up to 6 years for polluting discharges	Decriminalisation of several offences; penalties from ₹10,000 to ₹15 lakh
Offences by Govt. Departments	Department head deemed guilty unless due diligence proved	Department head liable to penalty equal to one month’s basic salary

Other Provisions

• Tampering with Monitoring Devices: Knowingly interfering with water meters or gauges attracts a penalty of ₹10,000 to ₹15 lakh.
• Adjudicating Officer: Central Government may appoint adjudicating officers (Joint Secretary–level at Centre / Secretary–level at State) to determine penalties.
• Environment Protection Fund: All penalties to be credited to the Environment Protection Fund under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Appeal Mechanism: Appeals against adjudication orders lie before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) after depositing 10% of the penalty.

Significance

• Decriminalisation & Trust-Based Governance: Reduces imprisonment for minor violations, improving ease of living and business.
• Reduced Regulatory Burden: Consent exemptions minimise duplication and regulatory overload while retaining safeguards.
• Streamlined Governance: Uniform appointment norms for SPCB leadership enhance transparency and administrative efficiency.
• Development–Environment Balance: Attempts to align economic growth with environmental sustainability.

Criticism

• Weak Deterrence: Monetary penalties may be ineffective for minor but widespread violations.
• Continuing Water Pollution: State of the Environment Report 2023—46% of Indian rivers remain polluted.
• Overlooking Water–Climate Nexus: Groundwater depletion and contamination threaten food and water security; NITI Aayog estimates ~4 lakh deaths annually due to unsafe water.
• Federalism Concerns: Increased central control over SPCBs seen as undermining State autonomy.

Conclusion

• Effective implementation requires stakeholder consultation, along with capacity building and training of Pollution Control Boards to ensure credible enforcement and environmental outcomes.

Water Cess Act, 1977

(a) Purpose

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act introduced an economic instrument.

• A cess is levied on water consumption
• Applicable to:
  • Water-intensive industries
  • Local authorities (municipal corporations, councils, cantonment boards)

(b) Objective

• To generate funds for CPCB and SPCBs
• To strengthen pollution-control infrastructure

(c) Incentive for Pollution Control

• 70% rebate on cess given if:
  • Effluent treatment equipment is installed

📌 This follows the principle:

Polluter Pays, but Cleaner Producer Pays Less

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

(a) Background

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was enacted to implement decisions of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

(b) Objective

• To improve air quality
• To prevent, control, and abate air pollution

(c) Key Provisions

• CPCB and SPCBs are empowered to regulate air pollution
• SPCBs can be constituted where absent
• CPCB functions as SPCB in Union Territories
• Industries in air pollution control areas must obtain consent
• SPCBs prescribe emission standards for:
  • Industries
  • Automobiles

📌 Standards are framed after:

• Consulting CPCB
• Considering state-specific ambient air quality

Amendment of 1988: Strengthening Enforcement

This amendment significantly increased teeth of the law.

(a) Power to Close Industries

Earlier:

• Only criminal prosecution was possible

After amendment:

• SPCB/CPCB can order closure of polluting industries

(b) Citizen Suit Provision

• Citizens and NGOs can approach courts directly
• Became a foundation for:
  • Environmental activism
  • PIL culture

(c) Inclusion of Noise Pollution

• Noise was formally recognised as air pollution
• Brought urban issues (traffic, construction, loudspeakers) under regulation