NEW DELHI, INDIA — The Supreme Court of India has made a historic decision that will have a big impact on how the environment is governed. The court said that pollution control boards have the constitutional right to levy and collect restitutionary or compensatory fines on polluters. The Court made it clear that this power is not just for punishing people, but for a bigger goal of dealing with real or possible harm to the environment.
A panel led by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra said that these powers are “necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.” The court overturned a decision made by the Delhi High Court in 2012 that took away this power from pollution control bodies. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that India’s environmental laws should focus on fixing problems and stopping them from happening again, not just punishing people.
Changing the meaning of the “Polluter Pays” Principle
The Court’s decision makes an important difference between punitive damages, which are criminal in nature and require stringent legal procedure, and restitutionary damages. The Court said that these damages are meant to fix damaged ecosystems or lessen the damage that might happen to the environment. This means that pollution control boards can impose these damages even before any real damage to the environment happens, as a way to be safe.
The court said, “Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure.” This decision makes regulatory bodies more effective in stopping pollution and enhances the “polluter pays” rule in Indian law. The Court broadened the scope of this principle to three separate situations:
When rules are broken, this hurts the environment.
When damage happens even when no thresholds are crossed.
When there is a chance or possibility of environmental harm, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
In all three cases, the pollution control boards now have to take action before the fact, not only after it happens.
Constitutional Necessity and Prospective Pathways
The ruling said that pollution control boards get their authority from the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 48A (the state’s duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (the citizens’ duty to protect natural resources). The Court said that restoring the environment is a basic constitutional duty because of climate change and increased pollution.
The Supreme Court gave regulators more power, but it said they had to use it in a way that was clear, fair, and certain about how they would do it. It required that the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) current guidelines be turned into formal, binding rules. The court ruled that these laws must spell out clear ways to figure out how much damage was done to the environment, how to figure out how much money to pay, and how to protect natural justice. The decision also stressed the importance of democratic engagement, saying that future laws should include ways for citizens to complain and for communities to be involved in regulatory scrutiny.
Anumita Roychowdhury, the executive director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said that the decision was a “very good development” since it moves away from focusing too much on criminalization and toward more effective civil sanctions. “NGT or the Supreme Court imposed civil penalties, which are very important tools to drive action,” she said, stressing how crucial it is for the boards to have these additional powers immediately.