Just Fine : On Amending Environmental Laws : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-3: Conservation, Environmental Pollution, and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment.

Key Phrases: Union Environment Ministry, Environment Protection Act 1986, Right to the environment, Article 48-A, Article 51-A (g), Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, M.C. Mehta case.

Why in News?

The Union Environment Ministry has proposed to amend sections of key environmental legislation and make them less threatening to potential violators.

Current Legal framework:

In case of any non-compliance or contravention of the current provisions of the Environment Protection Act (EPA), or of the rules under this Act, the violator can be punished with imprisonment up to five years or with a fine up to Rs 1,00,000, or with both.
In case of continuation of such violation, an additional fine of up to Rs 5,000 for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such contravention can be levied.
If the violation continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender can be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to seven years.
The current EPA provisions govern the penalties in case of the single-use plastic ban that came into effect July 1, 2022.

Proposed amendment:

The amendments proposed want to weed out “fear of imprisonment for simple violations”, and therefore have such violations invite-only monetary fines.
Serious environmental crimes that cause grave injury or death would invite imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code.
These penalties would be decided by an ‘adjudication officer’ and transferred to an ‘Environment Protection Fund’.
The quantum of potential fines has been raised from beyond one lakh rupees to as much as five crore rupees.

Could fines act as a deterrent against pending cases?

Research on environmental crime in the United States and Europe suggests that fining is the most common mode of punishment.
An analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment found that Indian courts took between 9-33 years to clear a backlog of cases for environmental violations.
Starting with 2018, close to 45,000 cases were pending for trial and another 35,000 cases were added in that year.
More than 90% of cases were pending trial in five of seven major environmental laws.
While fines could theoretically help with faster redress, large environmental fines will continue to be contested in courts, adding to the prevailing practice of tardy justice.

Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India

Fundamental Rights:
- Right to environment is also a right without which development of an individual and realization of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14, and 19 of Part III have been used for environmental protection.
- Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to life. The right to a healthy environment is an important attribute of the right to live with human dignity.
- Article 19 (1) (g) confers a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity if it is a health hazard to the society or general public.
Directive principles:
- Article 47 provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. It cannot be assured without improvement of the environment.
- Article 48: It directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
- Article 48-A says that “the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”.
Fundamental Duty:
- Article 51-A (g) states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”
Article 246 divides the subject areas of legislation between the Union and the States.
- The Union List includes atomic energy, interstate transportation, shipping, air trafficking, oilfields, mines, and inter-state rivers.
- The State List includes public health and sanitation, agriculture, water supplies, irrigation and drainage, and fisheries.
- The Concurrent List includes forests, protection of wildlife, mines and minerals and development not covered in the Union List, population control, and factories.
Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws implementing India’s international obligations as well as any decision made at an international conference, association, or other body.

Supreme Court Judgements:

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State:
- The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in this case.
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India 1987:
- The Court treated the right to live in a pollution-free environment as a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Cooverjee B. Bharucha Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer 1954:
- The SC observed that, if there is a clash between environmental protection and the right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996):
- The Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development.”
The Precautionary Principle
- According to the principle, authorities must take precautionary measures when stakes are high, despite when scientific evidence about the expected event being harmful is not yet certain.
- This implies that protective action should be taken to prevent any possible harm, even if there is a chance that such harm will not occur–thus playing it safe.
Polluter Pays Principle:
- It is the commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. For example, a factory that produces a potentially poisonous substance as a by-product of its activities is usually held responsible for its safe disposal.