SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING ESSAY (SACE)

Repeat-2 Examination, March-2021

SUBJECT :- Environmental Law

SEMESTER :- IV

NAME :- Lucky Tandon

BATCH :- XIV
I.D no. :- 14/2014/1032
Roll no. :- 75

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.)

Question.1 “The Bhopal Gas tragedy, which occurred on 3rd December 1984, precipitated the
tightening of environmental law in India. In 1985, the Department of Environment (DOE)was
transformed into the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) with greater powers.
Thereafter, the umbrella act called the Environment (Protection) Act got passed in1986
encompassing water, air, land and other inter-relationships. The Act identified MoEF as its
nodal agency in the whole process of pollution control. The Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 was, subsequently, notified to facilitate the exercise of the powers conferred on the Boards
by the Act.”
In view of the above statement, discuss with the help of statutory provisions and case laws
as to why the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is considered as umbrella legislation?
Also discuss critically your views regarding the success of the Act in achieving its objectives
by explaining its various challenges and prospects.
Answer:
Introduction - The Environment (Protection) Act is a piece of legislation passed by the Indian
Parliament. It was enacted in 1986 under Article 253 of the Indian Constitution. The primary
goal of the Act is to provide for the protection and enhancement of the environment, as well as
topics related to it. The Government of India took part in the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972, with the goal of protecting and improving
environmental quality, preventing environmental hazards, and taking swift action in the event of
a contingency to minimize the risk to human health and environmental safety. This Act is an
umbrella piece of legislation that is intended to provide a framework for the operations of
numerous federal and state bodies created by prior laws, such as the Water Act and the Air Act.1

India made the choice to adopt the measures agreed upon at the United Nations Conference
following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which is regarded as India's greatest industrial disaster.
The Act is divided into four chapters and twenty-six parts. The Act mainly deals with the Central
Government's authority to set laws and take measures to safeguard the environment. It also gives
the government the authority to designate officers to ensure the effective operation of the Act

1Phillipe Sands (2003) Principles of International Environmental Law. 2nd Edition. p. xxi Available at [1]
Accessed 19 February, 2020
and the achievement of the Act's objectives. It also specifies consequences for violating the Act's
requirements.2

Act's Objectives

The primary goal of the Act is to safeguard and improve environmental quality. Other goals
include:
1. To carry out the decisions made at the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment in Stockholm in June 1972, at which India participated.
2. Enacting a broad legislation on areas of environmental protection not covered by existing
laws.
3. Existing regulations were more specialised in nature, focusing on a specific sort of
pollution and certain categories of dangerous chemicals rather than on general issues that
created substantial environmental risks, such as the Air Act, Water Act, and Wildlife
Protection Act.
4. To coordinate the operations of the different regulatory authorities in accordance with
current legislation.
5. To provide for the establishment of an environmental authority or authorities
6. To penalise those who harm the human environment, safety, and health in a deterring
manner.

Some Important Definitions

The following words are defined under Section 2 of the Act:

(a) “Environment” includes water, air, and land, as well as the interdependence of water,
air, and land, as well as property.
(b) “Environmental pollutant” refers to any solid, liquid, or gaseous substance present in
sufficient concentration to be or tend to be harmful to the environment.

2 Li, R.Y.M.; Li, Y.L.; Crabbe, M.J.C.; Manta, O.; Shoaib, M. The Impact of Sustainability Awareness and Moral
Values on Environmental Laws. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5882. Thisum https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/13/11/5882/htm
 (c) “Environmental pollution” refers to the presence of any contaminant in the
environment.
(d) The term "handling" refers to the manufacturing, processing, treatment, packaging,
storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversation, offering for sale,
transfer, or the like of any drug.
(e) “Hazardous material” refers to any substance or preparation that, due to its chemical
or physio-chemical qualities or handling, is capable of causing harm to humans, other
living things, plants, microorganisms, property, or the environment.3

Central Government Authority to Take Environmental Protection Measures

Section 3 of the Act gives the Central Government complete authority to take any action it deems
necessary to protect the environment.
● In accordance with this Act or the rules enacted thereunder; or
● Under any other law currently in force that is relevant to the purposes of this Act;
● Designing and implementing a national programme for environmental pollution
prevention, control, and abatement;
● Establishing criteria for environmental quality in all of its elements;
● Establishing standards for the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from
any source; provided, however, that different emission or discharge standards may be
established under this clause from different sources depending on the quality or
composition of the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from such sources.
● Limiting the regions in which any industry, operation, or process, or class of industries,
operations, or processes, must not be carried out or shall be carried out with specified
safeguards;
● Establishing processes and safeguards for the avoidance of accidents that may cause
environmental contamination, as well as corrective actions for such incidents;
● Establishing procedures and safeguards for managing hazardous chemicals;
● Assessment of production methods, materials, and chemicals that are liable to pollute the
environment;

3Environment Protection Act

 ● Conducting and funding investigations and research on environmental pollution
problems;
● Inspecting any premises, plant, equipment, machinery, manufacturing or other
processing, materials, or substances and issuing orders to such authorities, officials, or
people as it deems essential to take actions for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution;
● The creation or recognition of environmental labs and institutions to carry out the tasks
delegated to such laboratories and institutes by this Act;
● The gathering and distribution of information on environmental pollution issues;
● The creation of manuals, rules, or recommendations pertaining to environmental
pollution prevention, control, and abatement.
● Any other items deemed necessary or desirable by the Central Government for the
purpose of ensuring the proper execution of the provisions of this Act.

Evaluation of Success of the Environment Protection Act

Despite the fact that India has a large number of environmental rules, are they effective?
Evidence shows that while measures such as the use of catalytic converters in automobiles have
helped to reduce air pollution, there has been considerably less Progress has been made in
reducing water tainting. There is a school of thought that believes controllers can be successful if
they are given sufficient authority and legitimacy.

Environmental management is often regarded as one of the most important public

administrations provided by governments to their citizens all over the world. While these
regulations impose costs on businesses and people by requiring them to dispose of contaminants
in a trustworthy manner, they also provide benefits such as improved health, a cleaner
environment, and other associated advantages in exchange for their implementation.4

This norm does not exclude India from its application. An immense number of environmental
regulations, centred on the first Water Act of 1974 and the first Air Act of 1981, have been

4Aldred's Case (1610) 9 Co Rep 57b; (1610) 77 ER 816

enacted in order to adapt to the unquestionably dangerous levels of pollution that have been seen
in the environment. As a result of this, India has established a comprehensive network of
government divisions (at both the national and state levels) that are dedicated to putting these
standards into effect.

Nonetheless, the public's perception of the attainment of these criteria has not been consistently
positive in terms of their implementation. The inability of these constraints, as well as allegations
of mismanagement of funds allocated for these purposes, have been the topic of a plethora of
media articles and reports, ranging from underuse and inaccurate responses to money diversion.5

These accounts and reports not only provide insight into the workings and difficulties of putting
into effect viable environmental guidelines in India and other parts of the world, but they also
provide methodical proof on whether the guidelines have succeeded in their intended purpose of
reducing air and water contamination. More than that, these statistics provide no insight into how
the overall benefits of the standards (in terms of pollution reduction and lives saved) relate to the
costs of the frameworks that are being discussed. Even if a particular arrangement results in a
significant improvement in people's wellbeing, the cost of implementing it may be prohibitively
expensive, implying that the money would have been better spent on other health-related
initiatives that result in far greater improvements.

In a recent research conducted by Greenstone and Hanna 2012 they present fresh data on the
effectiveness of these rules in achieving their most fundamental aim of decreasing environmental
pollution . The research gathered detailed, yearly data on air pollution in 124 cities and water
pollution in 424 cities, and matched this data with information on the timing of the
implementation of various environmental regulations in each of these cities. The results were
published in Environmental Science and Technology. The difference in pollution levels between
cities when a regulation was adopted and those that did not implement the legislation or did so
later was then measured. This method of analysing policy, known as the "difference in
difference," allows us to shed light on the causal relationship between pollution levels and the
restrictions in place.

5R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702

What does the data tell us about the situation?
First and foremost, simply examining the changes in pollution through time revealed some
intriguing data. “Secondly, Air pollution has been decreasing over time: for example, according
to these statistics, ambient particulate matter concentrations decreased by around 17 percent
between 1987 and 1990 and 2004 and 2007. This shift was not driven by a single city, but rather
was observed in all of the cities included in the sample as a whole. The trend in water pollution
concentrations, on the other hand, was more varied throughout this time period, with the
concentrations of certain pollutants increasing while the concentrations of others decreased.”

Following that, we'll examine if environmental restrictions played a role in the reduction of air
pollution. “As a result of our investigation, we believe the answer is yes. To provide just one
example, the obligatory adoption of catalytic converters for automobiles reversed the increasing
trends in particulate matter concentrations and sulphur dioxide concentrations, resulting in
significant reductions in both hazardous types of air pollution. Similarly, the Supreme Court
Action Plans – the most well-known of which was in Delhi, but which had also been
implemented in 17 other cities – contributed to the reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions in the
atmosphere (which is a precursor of ozone).”

Were the same kinds of results observed in the fight against water pollution? More precisely,
would there have been more water contamination if the regulations had not been implemented?
We investigated the impact of India's National River Conservation Plan (NRCP), which serves as
the cornerstone of the country's water pollution management. Despite this, we were unable to
detect any influence of the programme on any of the three indicators of water pollution that we
examined.

This leaves us with the issue of why the air pollution strategy was more effective than the water
pollution policy in terms of reducing pollution. Some insights may be gained from looking at the
history and comments around the regulations. Air pollution measures were frequently prompted
by public complaints and enforced by an activist Supreme Court, and the validity of the rules
appears to be a predictor of effectiveness in this regard. As a result, there was a final claimant
who had a vested interest in seeing that the requirements were followed to the letter. Water
pollution policies, on the other hand, were less community-driven than air pollution regulations,
which was a significant difference. This policy was weakened in the end, in our opinion, since no
institutional body was empowered to implement it successfully because no institutional entity
was granted the necessary authority, resources, and institutional mandate.

The Need For a More Robust Execution Mechanism

It doesn’t matter how many laws the Parliament passes. Until and unless there is a ground-level
implementation, no real change can be seen. It is critical for the legal process to have an efficient
implementation mechanism. The need for improved implementation is critical because, no matter
how stringent the legislation established by the legislature is, if the legislation is not effectively
implemented, the written legislation is rendered ineffective. Laws that are expressed or mandated
will not be of any assistance unless and until they are effectively applied in practise. The police,
jail officials, investigators, and other relevant parties are necessary for effective implementation.
Authorities have delegated responsibilities for maintaining public safety to law enforcement
officers (police officers). They are the ones who arrive on the scene of a crime and are granted
the authority to apprehend the perpetrators and bring them before the court. As a result, it is
critical that the police work swiftly in order to apprehend the perpetrator as quickly as possible in
order to bring justice to the victim.6

The following are the consequences of improved implementation:

1. Giving authority to law enforcement agencies is critical to ensuring that the law is
properly enforced. In order for authorities to function more efficiently and for laws to be
properly executed, more authority must be conferred on them by the legislature.
2. This creates dread in the people's psyche, and written rules alone would not be sufficient
to dissuade the general population from participating. Consequently, effective

6Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1

 implementation becomes necessary in order for the stated laws to be put into action..
Because of the efficient execution of penalties, the general people will be deterred from
committing crimes if the punishments are adequately enforced.
3. Proper functioning of the judicial system- When law enforcement officials act properly, it
becomes easier for the judiciary to grasp the case and deliver a verdict, allowing justice to
prevail in the long run. The judiciary is a pillar of a democratic society, and it is burdened
with a large number of outstanding cases as a result of which it is unable to perform its
functions efficiently. As a result, it is critical that the burden of proof be divided or that a
fast trial be conducted. Improved execution of the legislation would reduce the load on
the judiciary, allowing it to perform its functions in a more effective and efficient fashion.
It is critical to have a combination of strong legislation and effective execution. 7 Only harsh
legislation combined with improved execution would produce the desired results since neither
strict law nor improved implementation could be effective on their own in eliminating crime
from the community. Court proceedings that drag on for years, causing victims to lose faith and
the accused to flee the country are among the most frustrating aspects of our judicial system. The
public's perception of the court system is clouded by the fact that it is impossible to obtain justice
on time if a matter is brought before it at such a late and prolonged stage. Laws that are too
liberal and ineffective in their execution are the root of this uncertainty. When the authorities
operate efficiently, it will aid the judiciary in reaching a decision as quickly as possible, and the
harsh laws will discourage the general public from committing crimes in the future. As a result,
both would work together to reduce crime in the country and restore peace.

The following steps will be made to ensure that justice is served through rigorous legislation and
greater implementation:
1. It is necessary to establish a defined time limit for the disposition of cases in order to
ensure that the victim does not suffer unduly while seeking justice.
2. Instead of stating a minimum and maximum punishment for crimes, a fixed punishment
should be mentioned for certain offences.
7MacKinnon, A. J., Duinker, P. N., Walker, T. R. (2018). The Application of Science in Environmental Impact
Assessment. Routledge.
 3. People will be deterred from committing crimes if the severity of the sanctions is
commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.8

Conclusion
It is hereby concluded that environmental legislation in India can be effective in decreasing
pollution concentrations, but only if the regulators are adequately empowered and motivated in
their efforts. The fundamental question of what is the ideal degree of environmental control, on
the other hand, has yet to be solved. Developing credible estimates of the costs that laws impose
on firms and families, and then comparing them to the benefits to society that pollution
reductions provide in terms of health and other areas, would be required to accomplish this
objective. Also essential is the testing of new, market-based types of regulation that can result in
pollution reductions at a reduced cost. Despite the existence of the regulatory mechanisms and
laws, there has been little success with respect to ground-level implementation.

Question 2. “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the culmination of
over a decade-long deliberation between the Central and State Governments, provided for the
establishment of Boards for Prevention and Control of Pollution of water. These Boards were
entitled to initiate various proceedings against infringement of environmental law, without
waiting for the affected people to launch legal action.”
In the light of above statement, discuss with the help of statutory provisions and case laws
the constitution, composition, power and functions of the Central and State Pollution
Control Boards. Also discuss critically your views regarding the success of these Boards in
achieving the required objectives by explaining its various challenges and prospects.

Answer: Introduction- The necessity for environmental preservation and conservation, as well
as for sustainable use of natural resources, is reflected in India's constitutional framework, as
well as in the country's international obligations. Every citizen of India has a responsibility under
Part IVA (Art 51A-Fundamental Duties) of the Constitution to conserve and develop the natural
environment, which includes forests, lakes, rivers, and animals, as well as to have compassion
for all living beings, according to the Constitution. Furthermore, the Indian Constitution, in Part
8Eccleston, Charles H. (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices.
Chapter 5. ISBN 978-1439828731
IV (Article 48A-Directive Principles of State Policies), states that the state should make every
effort to conserve and develop the environment, as well as to safeguard the country's forests and
animals.9

Even before India gained independence, there were a number of environmental protection laws
in place. However, it was only until the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
that the genuine impetus for putting in place a well-developed framework was given (Stockholm,
1972). Following the Stockholm Conference, the National Council for Environmental Policy and
Planning was established in 1972 inside the Department of Science and Technology with the
goal of establishing a regulatory body to oversee environmental concerns. This Council
subsequently developed into a full-fledged Ministry of Environment and Forests, which is still in
operation today (MoEF).

Pollution Control Boards

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was founded in 1985 and is currently the
highest administrative agency in the country responsible for regulating and assuring
environmental protection, as well as for establishing the legislative and regulatory framework for
the same. Since the 1970s, a slew of environmental legislations have been enacted across the
country. This sector's regulatory and administrative core is formed by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the pollution control boards ("CPCB," which stands for
Central Pollution Control Board, and "SPCBs," which stands for State Pollution Control Boards).
The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), a statutory organisation, was established in
September 1974 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, to regulate
water pollution. Furthermore, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was charged with the
authorities and responsibilities conferred by the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981.

“As a field formation, it assists the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the implementation
of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and also offers technical assistance to the Ministry of
9Eccleston, Charles H. (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices.
Chapter 5. ISBN 978-1439828731
Environment and Forests. The Central Pollution Control Board's primary functions, as outlined
in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, are I to promote the cleanliness of streams and wells in different
areas of the States through the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution, and (ii) to
improve the quality of air and to prevent, control, or abate air pollution in the aforementioned
areas. The monitoring of air quality is a critical component of air pollution control and
management. To achieve these goals, the National Air Monitoring Programme (NAMP) was
formed with two primary objectives: to assess the current state and trends of air quality, and to
manage and regulate pollution from factories and other sources in order to satisfy air quality
requirements. Aside from that, it offers ambient air quality data that is required for industrial
siting and municipal planning.”10

In addition, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has an automated monitoring station at
the ITO Intersection in New Delhi. Every day, this station monitors for a variety of pollutants,
including respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3),
sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and suspended particulate matter (SPM).
Weekly updates are made to the information on Air Quality at ITO.

Environmental Water Quality Monitoring is a critical component of water quality management.

Fresh water is a scarce resource that is important for human survival, as well as for use in
agriculture, industry, wildlife and fisheries reproduction, and for the spread of wildlife and
fisheries. India is a land with a lot of rivers. It has 14 main rivers, 44 medium rivers, and 55
small rivers, as well as several lakes, ponds, and wells, all of which are utilised as primary
sources of drinking water, even if they are not treated beforehand. Most of the rivers that are fed
by monsoon rains, which are only present for three months of the year, are dry for the rest of the
year, transporting wastewater discharges from businesses or cities/towns, therefore
compromising the quality of our limited water resources. The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, was adopted by the Indian Parliament in its wisdom with the goal of
preserving and restoring the wholesomeness of our water bodies and bodies of water. A major
responsibility of the CPCB is to collect, consolidate, and disseminate technical and statistical

10Caves, R. W. (2004). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. p. 227.

data pertaining to water pollution. In order to do this, Water Quality Monitoring (WQM) and
Surveillance are of greatest necessity.11

Provide advice to the governments of Union Territories on the appropriateness of any premises
or site for the conduct of any activity that has the potential to contaminate a stream or well or
create air pollution; Standards should be established for the treatment of sewage and trade
effluents and for the emission of pollutants from cars, industrial facilities, and any other polluting
source. Evolve effective ways of sewage and trade effluent disposal on land; create dependable
and economically feasible methods of sewage, trade effluent, and air pollution control
equipment; Indicate the existence of any place or locations inside Union Territories that should
be designated as air pollution control areas in accordance with the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981. Environmental quality assessments and inspections of wastewater
treatment installations (including air pollution control equipment), industrial plants (including
manufacturing processes), and other facilities are performed to evaluate the performance of these
systems and to take steps to reduce or eliminate pollution in the environment (including water).

With respect to the Union Territories, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has delegated
its powers and functions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, and the Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 to the respective local administrations, in accordance with a policy
decision taken by the Government of India. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), in
conjunction with its equivalents, the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), is responsible for
the execution of legislation pertaining to the prevention and control of environmental pollution in
the country.

Evaluation of Success of Pollution Control Boards

11In the United States, estimates of environmental regulation total costs reach 2% of GDP. See Pizer & Kopp,
Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation, 1 (2003 Resources for the Future) Archived 2009-03-26 at
the Wayback Machine.
According to the findings of a recent research, a severe lack of technical specialists and other
personnel has relegated central and state pollution regulators to the status of advisory
organisations, rendering them unable to enforce air quality regulations as a result of the shortfall.

The Central Pollution Control Board, located in Delhi, and a network of 27 State Pollution
Control Boards are responsible for controlling pollution across a broad range of industries. It has
been ten years since India instituted new National Ambient Air Quality Standards that pollution
control boards are required to enforce, and the country has recorded the worst levels of pollution
in history, with the greatest number of Indian cities making it onto the global list of the world's
20 most polluted cities. In that year, around 1.67 million Indians perished as a result of air
pollution. If India reached National Ambient Air Quality Standards, it would be possible to
extend the lives of about 660 million people.
The Centre for Chronic Disease Control, a Delhi-based non-profit organisation, conducted
extensive interviews with officials from pollution control boards, bureaucrats, academics, and
environmentalists in eight cities: Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi, Raipur, Bhubaneswar, Vijayawada,
Goa, and Mumbai–in order to understand the institutional and informational reasons for this
failure.

Staff shortages, increasing workloads, a lack of awareness of the health consequences of

pollution, ineffective cooperation with relevant agencies, and low levels of motivation and
accountability within the workforce were all discovered in the research.

According to Santosh Harish, a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, a Delhi-based think-
tank, "besides addressing concerns of personnel and funding, the study examines how pollution
control boards apparently view themselves as technical consultants rather than regulatory
agencies." “This appears to be particularly problematic when dealing with sources that fall
within the authority of other agencies, when coordinated effort is required in order to achieve
progress.”
In January 2019, the Indian government unveiled a nationwide strategy to reduce air pollution in
the country by 20 percent to 30 percent by 2024. In order to address the particularly high levels
of air pollution in the National Capital Region of Delhi and surrounding states, the Centre
recently passed an ordinance establishing an 18-member committee composed of independent
experts, bureaucrats, and other representatives from the affected states.

However, according to the research, the success of any green effort is dependent on the
performance of the pollution control boards, with many of them now failing.

According to Bhargav Krishna, one of the report's authors and an expert with the Public Health
Foundation of India, "While interventions that strengthen the legislative framework, such as the
recent ordinance, are welcome, they will be as ineffective as previous efforts unless the
regulatory bodies that allow for their implementation are strengthened with the technical and
financial resources required."

State pollution control boards have witnessed an increase in the breadth and size of their job over
the previous two decades, but they have not seen an increase in their budgets or staff. During its
on-the-ground assessment, the research discovered that more than half of the posts in some state
pollution control bodies were empty. It was discovered that remuneration was inadequate,
making it difficult for the board to retain top-tier staff.
As part of its mandate, state pollution control boards are responsible for conducting frequent
onsite pollution inspections across a range of businesses that are categorised according to their
pollution levels (see chart below). In most cases, regional offices of state pollution control boards
are charged with this responsibility, in addition to a number of other tasks. According to the
findings of the study, because an inspection typically necessitates travel, it frequently falls to the
bottom of the list of priorities for the Pollution Control Board. Furthermore, officials from all of
the state pollution control boards stated that a lack of staff was a major factor in the delays in
inspections.

According to the research, the absence of up-to-date data was highlighted by a 2008 report by a
parliamentary committee, which stated that the state pollution control boards in Karnataka and
Maharashtra had failed to perform inspections even once a year, despite having the resources.
For Maharashtra (in 2008), the average inspection rate was 0.3 times higher than for Karnataka
(at 0.63 times higher), according to the findings of the research. In other words, an industry gets
examined on average once every three years in Maharashtra and twice every three years in
Karnataka, according to the state government.

Even though Gujarat's State Pollution Control Board conducted twice-yearly inspections of all of
the companies in the "red category" (the most polluting industries), the board stated that this was
unlikely to be sufficient to assure compliance throughout the year.

Despite the passage of time, little has changed. A substantial imbalance exists between technical
and non-technical employees, with a large number of positions remaining unfilled, according to
the report's findings.

A large number of respondents spoke about their part in pollution monitoring. States, in addition
to the monitoring networks created by the Central Pollution Control Board, have built their own
monitoring networks. However, because of a lack of technical knowledge, the quality and
usefulness of the data collected remain in doubt, according to the research.

To provide quality assurance and quality control, the Central Pollution Control Board is obliged
to make visits to monitoring stations, review meetings, analyse quality control, and conduct
training programmes, among other things. According to the findings of the study, few of these
activities are carried out with the same frequency or effectiveness at the state level. Calibration
of monitoring equipment is commonly highlighted as a source of difficulty in the field.

While the capability for real-time monitoring – such as in the case of air pollution – continues to
grow year after year, gaps in data collection and erroneous readings owing to poor calibration
continue to be a problem in the field. For example, according to a new dashboard established by
civil society organisations Carbon Copy and Respirer Living Sciences, air quality sensors in
some non-attainment cities tracked under the National Clean Air Program are not even capturing
the optimal amount of measurements. There might be a variety of causes for this, including
technological issues.
The study discovered that while the protection of human health is at the heart of India's
environmental laws, the state pollution control boards have a limited understanding of these
laws, as well as misinformation about the sources, distribution, and impact of air pollution,
according to the findings.

The replies of interviewees to a question concerning their awareness of the health effects of air
pollution were wildly disparate. Some demonstrated a thorough grasp of the problems, while
others did not, and some appeared to be ignorant. An anonymous respondent casually stated that
"air pollution is not an alarm bell for us yet" and that "the criteria were designed to apply to
Europeans, not Indians," according to the report. "This is a clear violation of accepted science,"
the researchers said. "

According to experts, the findings of the study should serve as a wake-up call to enhance and
reinforce India's environmental regulators. To achieve breathable air and an environmentally
friendly environment, it is critical to change the status quo and strengthen the Pollution Control
Boards while also increasing transparency in their operations as regulators in controlling
pollution and emissions at the source, according to Sunil Dahiya, an analyst at the non-profit
Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

Conclusion
There needs to be a filling of gaping holes in the implementational mechanism of Pollution
Control Boards to ensure that they are not reduced merely to advisory bodies. The role played by
these organizations are important considering the cause that they have been established for.
Counting the menace of pollution is one of the topmost priorities for survival of the human race
in the present day and it is only by targeted problem solving that the same can be achieved.
However, as highlighted above, numerous faults exist in the pollution control boards both at the
Central as well as the State level. Implementation of Environmental protection statutes can be
best ensured by these boards which can lead to reduced pollution and a better environment.