38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, August 07, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Pollution Boards can impose, collect restitutionary and compensatory damages: SC [Read Judgment]

By Jhanak Sharma      06 August, 2025 03:20 PM      0 Comments
Pollution Boards can impose collect restitutionary and compensatory damages SC

NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court has declared that the pollution control boards can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under the Water and Air Acts.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra pointed out the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry and the application of the 'Polluter Pays principle' not only includes payment for restoring the damaged environment, taking remedial action to deal with the damage and compensating for the direct harm caused, but also for avoiding pollution.

The court pointed out the invocation of this principle is triggered in the situations, when an established threshold or prescribed requirement is exceeded or breached, and it does result in environmental damage, when an established threshold or prescribed requirement is not exceeded or breached, nevertheless the act in question results in environmental damage and also when a potential risk or a likely adverse impact to the environment is anticipated, irrespective of whether or not prescribed thresholds or requirements are exceeded or breached.

Citing Article 51A of the Constitution, the bench pointed out, of all the duties imposed under it, the obligation to conserve and protect water and air, is perhaps the most significant, amidst our climate change crisis.

"Public participation in environmental protection has assumed great importance with climate change threatening to drastically disrupt our way of living. Boards, being the first line of defence against polluting activities, must provide easy accessibility and encourage public participation in their function and decision making," the bench said.

On an appeal filed by Delhi Pollution Control Committee, the apex court set aside the Delhi High Court's single as well as division bench judgments, which held that penalties can be levied only by courts and that too after taking cognizance of offences specified under the two Acts.    

The court, however, said that the power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts should be enforced only after detailing the principle and procedure, incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation.

Considering the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the court noted unlike the Water Act, there is no specific appeal provision against directions issued under Section 31A of the Air Act.

"This asymmetry must be addressed legislatively," the court said.

The court also noted even after the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024, Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, there is no conflict between the powers of the state boards to direct payment of environmental damages under the Water and Air Acts and the powers of the adjudicating officer to impose penalties.

"The decriminalisation of offences has not removed the punitive nature of actions that can be taken under them. There remains a clear distinction between the nature of directions that the State Boards can issue under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts for payment of environmental damage and the determination by adjudicating officers," the bench said.

The court highlighted the former is compensatory in nature and will be resorted to when remedial measures are being undertaken to restore the degraded environment or pollution caused. The latter is a penalty for an offence under the law and is imposed with the objective of punishing the offender. This penalty collected here will not be specifically directed towards the restoration of the degraded environment, it clarified.

[Read Judgment]

Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-approves-tamil-nadus-with-you-stalin-scheme-slaps-rs-10-lakh-cost-on-aiadmk-mp
Trending Judiciary
SC approves Tamil Nadu's 'With You Stalin' scheme; slaps Rs 10 lakh cost on AIADMK MP

SC upholds Tamil Nadu’s ‘With You Stalin’ scheme, slams AIADMK MP with ₹10L fine for misuse of law to target DMK amid similar schemes nationwide.

06 August, 2025 03:12 PM
sc-asks-ec-to-file-response-to-plea-seeking-reasons-for-excluding-65-lakh-voters-in-bihars-sir
Trending Judiciary
SC asks EC to file response to plea seeking reasons for excluding 65 lakh voters in Bihar's SIR

SC seeks EC’s reply on plea alleging exclusion of 65 lakh voters in Bihar during electoral roll revision; hearing set for August 12.

06 August, 2025 03:16 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-to-first-consider-maintainability-of-review-against-2022-judgment-on-eds-powers-under-pmla
Trending Judiciary
SC to first consider maintainability of review against 2022 judgment on ED's powers under PMLA

SC to first decide if review pleas on ED powers under PMLA are maintainable; hearing on Karti Chidambaram’s plea set for August 6.

01 August, 2025 10:58 AM
sc-recalls-may-2-judgment-scrapping-jsw-steels-resolution-plan-for-bhushan-power-and-steel-ltd
Trending Business
SC recalls May 2 judgment scrapping JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd

SC recalls its May 2 verdict cancelling JSW Steel’s ₹19,300 Cr resolution plan for Bhushan Power; matter to be heard afresh on August 7.

01 August, 2025 11:13 AM
electronic-communication-not-valid-mode-of-service-of-notice-under-section-35-bnss-sc
Trending Judiciary
Electronic communication not valid mode of service of notice under Section 35 BNSS: SC [Read Order]

SC holds WhatsApp or email not valid for notice under Section 35 BNSS due to arrest risk; personal service required to safeguard liberty.

01 August, 2025 11:25 AM
sc-quashes-criminal-case-against-actor-mohan-babu-son
Trending CelebStreet
SC quashes criminal case against Actor Mohan Babu, son for dharna during 2019 General Elections [Read Judgment]

SC quashes case against Mohan Babu, son for 2019 dharna; says it was peaceful protest, no offence made out under electoral or criminal laws.

01 August, 2025 02:18 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email