INTRODUCTION

Air pollution refers to the presence of a pollutant in the air or the atmosphere. There are two
types of air pollution: indoor and outdoor. The sources of indoor air pollution include smoking,
inefficient burning of inferior fuels and poor ventilation. The sources of outdoor air pollution
include vehicles, industries, power plants, mining activities, construction activities, firecrackers,
cigarettes and crop burning etc. The urgent need to regulate air pollution is borne out by the
finding of a 2010 report of the Central Pollution Control Board that particulate matter in the air
of 180 Indian cities was six times higher than World Health Organization standards. Recently,
the Yale Environmental Performance Index has ranked India 174 out of 178 countries on air
pollution.1
Water pollution is said to have occurred when the pollution load exceeds the natural regenerative
capacity of a water resource. It is a very serious problem in India where 70 per cent of the
sources of surface water, such as rivers and lakes, are polluted and there is an alarming increase
in groundwater pollution as well. In light of the fact that surface water and groundwater are the
major sources of water supply for different uses, their pollution creates a situation where water
may be available in sufficient quantity but there is water scarcity due to quality concerns.
The sources of water pollution can be divided into point sources and non-point (or diffuse)
sources – the former include disposal of untreated or partly treated industrial effluents and
domestic sewage while the latter include agricultural run-off. Water pollution can also result
from encroachments, sand mining, religious activities, dumping of waste, etc.2

Water is the most important element for human life. It is becoming an increasingly scarce
commodity worldwide. There are vast water-stressed areas where people survive with little or no
water. It is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution
of India. The Resolution of UNO in 1977 to which India is a signatory, during the United Nation
Water Conference resolved unanimously, inter-alia, as under:

1
https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/Law/06._Environmental_law/09._Air_pollution/et/5727
_et_09_ET.pdf (Last Visited on 15 Oct, 2020 at 04:45 pm)
2
https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/Law/06._Environmental_law/05._Water_pollution/et/57
25_et_05_ET.pdf (Last Visited on 15 Oct, 2020 at 04:45 pm)

1
“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have
the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic
needs.”3

The United Nations also emphasized the importance of purity of water when it proclaimed on
10th November, 1980 “International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade,” India is
also signatory to this Declaration. Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to
life and there is a duty on the state under Art. 21 to provide clean water to its citizens.4
The Indian Parliament drew immense inspiration from the proclamation adopted by the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which took place at Stockholm, 1972 and
enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Subsequently, the
Government has enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975. The
Central Government has also enacted the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water
Pollution (Procedure for Transaction of Buisiness) Rules, 1975; The Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess
Rules, 1978; The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; The Public Insurance Liability Act, 1991
and the National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995.

CONTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The legal framework for water pollution comprises of the Constitution of India, legally binding
and enforceable laws and rules framed under the laws, as well as judicial decisions. There are
also a number of non-binding administrative regulations and guidelines concerning water quality
or water pollution at national, state and local levels. While some are concerned with public
health, others apply to environmental quality. Similarly, while some of them focus exclusively
on drinking water, others relate in general to the different uses of water. The Constitution of
India does not include any specific provision on environmental pollution generally or air
pollution specifically. However, the judiciary has interpreted the fundamental right to life

3
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 at 767. See also Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala
Devi, (2002) 6 SCC 496
4
A.P Pollution Control Board (II) v. M.V. Nayudu. (2001) 2 SCC 62 at 69

2
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to include the right to enjoyment of pollution-
free air and water.5 Two of the Directive Principles of State Policy, included in Part IV of the
Constitution, which provide that the State shall endeavour (a) to improve public health6 ; and (b)
to protect and improve the environment7 , are also relevant. Further, protection and improvement
of the natural environment, including lakes and rivers, has been identified as a fundamental duty
of every citizen in the Constitution .8 Under the Constitution, water, sanitation and public health
are included in List II of the Seventh Schedule; in other words, state governments rather than the
Central Government exercise powers in respect of these subjects. The 73rd and 74th
Constitutional Amendment
Acts in the year 1992 led to the introduction of Parts IX and X in the Constitution, which
constitutional local level governing bodies, that is, municipal authorities in urban areas and
Panchayati Raj Institutions (Gram Sabhas or panchayats) in rural areas. States have been vested
with the discretion to delegate any or all of the functions relating to water, sanitation and public
health, among others, to these local bodies.

OBJECTIVE OF THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF

POLLUTION) ACT, 1974:
The purpose of the legislation is not only the prevention and control of Water Pollution but also
the maintenance and restoration of the wholesomeness of water. This specialized legislative
measure is meant to tackle one facet of environmental pollution. The fundamental objective of
the Water Act is to provide clean drinking water to the citizens. Its main Objectives are as
follows:
1. To provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or
restoring of wholesomeness of water.

2. To establish Central and State Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution.

5
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, AIR 1990 SC 420
6
Art. 47 of Constitution of India, 1950
7
Art. 48A of Constitution of India, 1950
8
Article 51-A(g) of Constitution of India, 1950

3
 3. To provide for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating
thereto and for matters connected therewith.9

4. To provide penalties for the contravention of the provisions of the Water Act.

5. To establish Central and State water-testing laboratories to enable the Board to assess the
extent of pollution, lay down standards and establish guilt or default.

OBJECTIVE OF THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF

POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

 the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution

 To provide for the establishment of central and State Boards with a view to implement
the Act.
 To confer on the Boards the powers to implement the provisions of the Act and assign to
the Boards functions relating to pollution.

Air pollution is more acute in heavily industrialized and urbanized areas, which are also densely
populated. The presence of pollution beyond certain Limits due to various pollutants discharged
through industrial emission is monitored by the PCBs set up in every state.

PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE UNDER WATER ACT:

Statutory Provisions under Sections 41 to 50 deal with penalty and procedure where violation of
the provisions of this Act has taken place. The Act does not prescribe same penalty for different
Acts of violation. It lays down different penalties.
1. Failure to Comply with Directions: Whoever fails to comply with any direction under
Section 20 (2), information about abstraction of water or discharge of effluents, or Section 20

9
Stella Silk Ltd, v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Kant. 219 at 224
4
(3), information regarding constitution, installation or operation of any establishment of or any
disposal system etc., within such time as may be specified in the direction shall, on conviction be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which
may extend to Rs. 10,000 or with both and in case failure continues, with an additional fine
which may extend to Rs. 5,000 for every day during which such failure continues after the
conviction for the first such failure.10
Failure to comply with an order issued Under Section 32 (1) (c), restrain or prohibiting from
discharging poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into stream or well or on land; or any
direction issued by court under 104. Section 32 (2), directing any person from desisting from
causing any pollution of the water in any stream of well etc., or any direction issued under
Section 33-A, direction regarding closure, regulation, stoppage of electricity etc, is also
punishable on conviction, with imprisonment for periods ranging from 18 months to 6 years and
with fine. Continuing contravention attracts an additional fine of Rs.5, 000/- for each day after
the conviction for the first such offence, 11 where such failure continues beyond one year the
offender can be punished with imprisonment for a period of two to seven years and with fine
also.12

Section 41 of the Water pollution Act, 1974 and Section 37 of the Air Pollution Act 1981, are the
penal provisions and are based on the same footing. The provision relating to penalty has been
provided in Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
2. Penalties for Certain Acts: Section 42 of this Water Act provides the following:-
(a) Destroys, pulls down, removes, injurious or defaces any pillar post or stake fixed in the
ground or any notice or other matter put up, inscribed, or placed by or under authority of the
Board; or
(b) Obstructs any person acting under the orders or directions of the Board from exercising his
powers and performing his functions under this Act; or
(c) Damages any work or property, belonging to the Board, or
(d) Fails to furnish any information required of him for the purposes of this Act, or
(e) fails to intimate the occurrence of any accident or other unforeseen act or event under Section
31 to the Board and other authorities or agencies as required by that section, or
10
Section 41 (1) of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
11
Section. 41 (2). of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
12
Section. 41 (3). of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

5
(f) in giving any information which he is required to give under this Act, or knowingly or
willfully makes a statement which is false in any material particular, or
(g) For the purpose of obtaining any consent under Sections 25 or 26, knowingly willing fully
makes a statement which is false in any material particular,

Shall be liable to undergo imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or fine
upto Rs. 10,000/- or with both.13

Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of this Act provided that where for the grant of a consent in
pursuance of the provisions of Sections 25 or 26, the use of a meter or gauge or other monitoring
device is required, then any person who knowingly or willfully alters or interferes with such
device shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or
with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or with both.

3. Penalty for Contravention of Provisions of Section 24: - Whoever contravenes the

provisions of Section 24, i.e., prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter
etc, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and
six months, but which may extend to six years and with fine.14
4. Penalty for Contravention of Section 25 or Section 26: - Whoever contravenes the
provisions of -
(i) Section 24 regarding restrictions on new outlets and new discharges; or
(ii) Section 26 regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent, shall render himself
liable to be punished under Section 44 of the Water Act which provide that such act shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months
but which may extend to six years and with fine.15
5. Enhanced Penalty After Previous Conviction: Section 45 provides that if any person who
has been convicted of any offence under Sections 24, 25 and 26 is again found guilty of an
offence involving a contravention of the same provision he shall on the second and on every
subsequent conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
two years but it may extend to seven years and with fine. But no cognizance shall be taken of any

13
Section 42 (1) of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
14
Section 43 of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
15
Section 44 of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

6
conviction made more than 2 years before the commission of the offence which is being
punished.
6. Penalty for Contravention of Certain Provisions of the Act: - The Provisions of the Section
45-A provides that whoever fails to comply with any order or direction given under this Act, for
which no penalty is elsewhere provided under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or with both
and in case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to
Rs. 5,000/- for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction
for the first such contravention or failure.

7. Publication of Names of Offenders: If any person convicted of an offence under this Act
commits a like offence afterwards, it shall be lawful for the Court before which the second or
subsequent conviction takes place, to cause the offender’s name and place of residence, the
offence and penalty imposed, to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in
such other manner as the Court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed
to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a
fine.16

8. Offences By Companies: The Act has introduced the Doctrine of vicarious liability and joint
liability under Sections 47 and 48 which are based on the maxim of qui facit per alienum, facit
per se, or respondeat superior.
Section 47 provides that where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who,
at the time of the offence was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of
the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly.
But there shall be no liability of any such person if he proves:-
(i) That the offence was committed without his knowledge; or
(ii) That he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
If the offence is committed by the Company, any Director, Manager, Partner in firm, Secretary,
other Officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and punished, if it
can be proved that the offence was committed with

16
Section 44 of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

7
 a) his consent or connivance, or

b) his attributable to any neglect on his part.17

In U. P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery 18, there was pollution by the industrial unit
resulting in prosecution of Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors of the Company.
There was willful default on the part of the industrial unit in furnishing details. Consequently the
name of the company thereof was wrongly described in the complaint. It was held by the
Supreme Court that this cannot be the ground for quashing the complaint against the Chairman
and others.

9. Offences by Government Departments: - Under the Section 48 of the Water Act, provides
that where any Department of the Government commits an offence under this Act, the Head of
the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly.
However, there shall be no liability of the Head of the Department –
a) if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge; or

b) that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

10. Cognizance of Offences: - Under Section 49 of the Water Act, provides that the Court shall
take cognizance of any offence, only if the complaint is made by –
a) A Board or any officer authorized in this behalf by Act; or

b) Any person who has given the notice of not less than 60 days of the alleged offence and
of his intention to make complaint to the Board or the authorized officer.
The Trial Court must not be inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate
of First class.19

In M C Mehta v. Union of India(Kanpur Tanneries case)20, a public interest litigation sought an

order from the Supreme Court to restrain the tanneries near Kanpur city from discharging trade

17
Section 47 (2) of THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974
18
AIR 1988 SC 1128
19
Section 49 (1) of the Water Act
20
AIR 1988 SC 1037,

8
effluents into the river Ganga until they set up effluent treatment plants. The Court observed that
the provisions of the Water Act were comprehensive but the SPCBs had not taken effective steps
to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga . It also noted the failure of the Central
Government to do much under the Environment Act to stop the grave public nuisance caused by
the tanneries. Insofar as the tanneries are concerned, the Court observed that the fact that their
effluents are first discharged into municipal sewers did not absolve the tanneries from being
proceeded against under the provisions of the law in force, since ultimately the effluents reach
the river Ganga. Among other directions, the Court ordered stoppage of work in the tanneries,
which were discharging effluents into the river and which did not set up primary treatment
plants. It considered the financial capacity of the tanneries to set up primary treatment plants to
be irrelevant. According to the Court, the tanneries were not being taken by surprise as they were
being asked to take necessary steps to prevent discharge of untreated wastewater into the river
for several years.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India and Others 21, among other claims, it
was alleged that water in wells and streams in village Bichhri in Udaipur district in the State of
Rajasthan had become unfit for consumption as a result of disposal of untreated toxic sludge
from an industrial complex located within the limits of the village. The Supreme Court held that
the respondents were absolutely liable to pay compensation for the harm caused by them to the
villagers in the affected area and surrounding areas as well as to the environment. According to
the Court, the power to levy costs required for carrying out remedial measures is implicit in the
Environment Act.

PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE UNDER AIR ACT

Under Section 37, whoever fails to comply with the provisions of Section 21, 22 and the
directions issued under Section 31A, can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year
and six months. This sentence can be extended to six years and with fine, if the requisite

21
AIR 1996 SC 1446

9
compliances under the aforesaid sections are still not carried out, with an additional fine of five
thousand rupees every day.22

Under Section 38, penalties for certain acts are laid down. These acts are-

1. Destroying, defacing, removing etc any pillar, post, stake or notice fixed in the ground
under the authority of the Board.
2. Obstruction of any person acting under orders of the Board from exercising his
powers and functions under the Act.
3. Damaging any property belonging to the Board.
4. Failure to furnish information to an officer or any employee of the Board, which is
required by such officer or employee.
5. Failure to inform about the excess release of emissions than the standard set by the
State Board. Even an apprehension of the release of excess emissions should be
informed to the State Board.
6. Giving false statements to Board authorities when furnishing information.
7. Giving false information to the Board, for getting permission under Section 21 i.e.
permission for setting up industrial plants.23

These are offences that shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three
months with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or both.

 Under Section 39, any order or direction which has been flouted, and for which there
is no punishment anywhere in the Act, shall be punishable with three months
imprisonment or fine of three thousand rupees or both. If failure continues, there shall
be a fine of an additional five thousand rupees every day.
 Section 40 of this Act talks about offences by companies. If an offence is committed
by a company, every such person shall be deemed to be guilty, who is directly in
charge of the company, who was responsible to the company for the conduct of its
business as well as the company itself. He shall be punished according to the

22
Section 37 of THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
23
Section 38 THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

10
 provisions of this Act. However, where such an offence was committed without the
knowledge of such person, or where he had made full efforts and due diligence to stop
these offences, this person shall not be held liable.24
 Section 40(2) further states that where the offence was committed after taking the
consent of the director, manager, secretary or other officer or happened due to the
neglect of the aforesaid people, then they shall be deemed guilty and can be punished
according to the Act.

Section 40 includes two definitions-

1. Company: Any corporate body, including a firm or another association of individuals.

2. Director: In relation to a firm, it means a partner in the firm.

Section 41 talks about offences committed by governmental departments. Where any

government department has committed an offence under this Act, then the head of that
department shall be liable to be proceeded and accordingly punished. However, if the Head of
Department had no knowledge of the committing of these offences, or had practised due
diligence to prevent these offences from happening, he shall not be held liable.

Furthermore, as provided under Section 41(2), if such Head of Department had consented to, or
neglected to prevent, the commission of these offences, then such person shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Procedures

Sections 42 to 46 cover procedures. Section 42 states that no suit, prosecution or another legal

proceeding shall lie against the government, any officer of the government or any member,
employee or officer of the Board, where the actions are done by such body or persons are done
or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of this Act.

24
Section 40 THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

11
Section 43 states that the Court shall take cognizance of only those offences where the complaint
is made by-

1. A Board or any officer authorized under it

2. Any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, of the alleged offence
and his intention to make a complaint to the Board or an officer authorised by it.

No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First Class shall
try any offence punishable under this Act.

 Section 44 states that all members, officers and other employees shall be deemed to be
acting as public servants under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
 Section 45 states that the Central Board shall provide information in the form of data,
statistics, reports or another form of information etc to the Central Government and
the State Board shall also provide information in these forms, both to the Central
Board and the State Government.
 Section 46 involves a bar of jurisdiction. It states that no civil court shall have
jurisdiction in any matter which an Appellate Authority formed under this Act is
empowered by this Act to decide, nor should an injunction be granted in respect of
any action taken under the pursuance of the powers of this Act.  

Judicial pronouncements and case studies regarding clean air

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)25

25
1991 SCR (1) 866

12
  In this case, a writ petition was filed by M.C. Mehta regarding air pollution caused
due to vehicular emissions. He prayed for the Court to pass appropriate orders to
prevent pollution.
 The Court held that environmental protection is the responsibility of the State as
enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy and Articles 48A and 51A of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the right to a healthy environment was
a basic human right and this included the right to clean air, covered under the ambit
of Article 21 of the Constitution. In this way, the Court expanded the scope of Article
21 to include the right to a healthy environment and clean air under the fundamental
rights. 
 This paved the way for the introduction of lead-free petrol supply in Delhi and paved
the way for the introduction of compressed natural gas (CNG). The Court also assisted
in setting up a committee that was not just aimed at litigation but also finding long
term solutions to the air pollution problem in Delhi.
 Similarly, in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar26, it was held that right to life under
Article 21 included the right to a healthy and safe environment, which in turn included
the right to pollution-free air and water for the full enjoyment of life. It was held that
municipalities and other governmental bodies had an obligation of taking positive
measures to ensure a healthy environment. 

MC Mehta v Union of India and Others (Taj Trapezium case)27,:

The petitioner was concerned about the effects of air pollution on the Taj Mahal in Agra. A
number of sources, including foundries, chemical/hazardous industries and the Mathura refinery,
brick kilns, vehicular traffic and generator sets, were contributing to the air pollution. The
Supreme Court applied the precautionary principle, that is, environmental measures must
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The burden of proof is on
the industry to show that its operation with the aid of coke/coal is environmentally benign. The
other observations/directions of the Court include:
a) The emissions generated by the coke/coal consuming industries are air pollutants and
have damaging effect on the Taj and the people living in the TTZ.
26
AIR 1990 SC 420
27
(1997) 2 SCC 353
13
 b) The atmospheric pollution in the TTZ has to be eliminated at any cost. Not even one per
cent chance can be taken when human life and the preservation of a prestigious
monument is involved.
c) The identified industries shall change over to natural gas as an industrial-fuel.
d) The industries, which cannot obtain natural gas connections, shall stop functioning with
the aid of coke/coal in the TTZ. Such industries may relocate.

The curious case of Delhi28

 Air pollution in Delhi has been a major problem for many years but started coming
into the limelight in the 1990s. With the advent of the 1981 Act, pollution control
boards were set up and the number of legislations on the environment increased. 
 In 1996, the Supreme Court issued a suo moto notice to the Delhi government, asking
it to submit an action plan for clean air. The cases instituted by M.C. Mehta and the
general public furor over the state of the air further aggravated the issue. The
Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) was set up along
with the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP).
 On the basis of a report of the EPCA, the Supreme Court accordingly issued orders for
vehicles to run on compressed natural gas (CNG). This was a major success.
However, in the coming years, the number of vehicles increased from 4.24 million in
2004 to more than 10.8 million in March 2018, in addition to an increase in stubble
burning and construction activities (many of which are illegal). 
 Over the years, monitoring stations have been set up across Delhi to measure the
amount of particulate matter in the air. Public awareness and efforts have definitely
increased, with measures like Odd-even scheme and Supreme Court orders on cracker
bans, construction activities bans; being implemented. 
 In 2016, after the heavy smog wreaked havoc in Delhi, the Supreme Court again
asked the national government to make a plan to combat such episodes of air

28
https://blog.ipleaders.in/air-pollution-prevention-act/

14
 pollution. This programme came to be known as the Graded Response Action Plan
(GRAP).29
 This programme entails the identification of high-pollution areas within Delhi through
monitoring and measuring air quality, and then identifying the problems and
formulating local actions for those areas. 
 There is no doubt that Delhi still suffers from an air crisis every year. One must
understand that this occurs due to a host of factors which need mass action. 

CONCLUSION
The Government as well as Parliament both have taken a number of steps to control the water
pollution, but nothing substantial has been achieved. The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act, which deals with the collection of duty for consumption of water by various
29
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/india/fighting-air-pollution-in-delhi-for-2-decades-a-short-but-lethal-
history-67585

15
authorities. This duty has been said to be not a tax, but pollution duty. Object is to collect the
resources for the effective functions of the Boards from the person carrying on the specified
industry and by the local authorities. It means, more the pollution, more the collection. As the
collection will be assigned to the Boards, the financial dependence of the Board is made upon the
collection of duty for pollution. This may create a trend to allow the pollution on payment of
cess. Negative impact may come out from the detection of pollution, not the control and
abatement of pollution, being the basis of collection of fund.
The Environment (Protection) Act is the umbrella Act dealing with all the components of the
environment. The Central Government has been given wide powers to make rules, fix standards
of water.
Thus, for the abatement of water pollution, there are sufficient of laws dealing with various
matters, sometimes overlapping one another.
From the above accounts of various legal environmental aspects that both pre-Stockholm and
post-Stockholm provisions are as much important when mutually taken into account as they
would be if taken separately. There is a need to improve penalties in common law provisions so
that they can match up with the impact of environmental crimes. Bar of jurisdiction as laid down
in the Water and Air Acts should not be allowed to interfere with the Common law jurisdiction.
Justice is a fundamental right of every citizen and so it is important that citizens should be
empowered to present legal sample in the court of law. The right to know is a basic pillar for
environmental justice and denying a citizen that right is equal to denying the citizen the right to
fight pollution crimes. Despite their success, PILs still do not entirely gives a citizen the right of
claims or compensation. Moreover, in India, many environmental lawyers are classified under
the ‘pro bono’ .The extent and effects of air pollution on public health and the environment are
well recognised in India. A number of legal measures have been introduced at the Central level
as well as within states, either in exercise of the powers conferred by the applicable legislation or
as a response to directions issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts. However, the command-
and-control approach adopted by the existing environmental legislation and the inadequacy of
some of the emission standards undermines their ability to arrest the problem.
Further, while some of the measures contribute to alleviating the problem, their implementation
is not always satisfactory. Nevertheless, concerned members of the public continue to increase
awareness about the adverse effects of different activities on air pollution. They are also exerting

16
pressure on the government, either through lobbying or judicial proceedings, to improve the air
quality.

REFERENCES
 https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/Law/06._Environmental_law/
09._Air_pollution/et/5727_et_09_ET.pdf
 https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/Law/06._Environmental_law/
05._Water_pollution/et/5725_et_05_ET.pdf
 https://sg.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8107/11/11_chapter%206.pdf
 https://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/e7402_1.pdf
 https://www.jspcb.nic.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/AirAct.pdf
 https://www.pmfias.com/pollution-environment-biodiversity-laws/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/air-pollution-prevention-act/
 www.indiakanoon.com

17