Compounding of Offences under Environmental Law

Compounding of offences refers to the process of voluntarily admitting to the violation of a

law and accepting punishment, in exchange for the avoidance of prosecution. Compounding
of offences is allowed under various environmental laws in India, including the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Under these laws, the
Central and State Pollution Control Boards (CPCB and SPCBs) are authorized to compound
certain offences by imposing a fine or penalty on the violator.

The compounding fees may vary depending on the nature of the offence and the severity of
the violation. Compounding of offences is generally allowed for minor violations, such as
failure to comply with reporting requirements or minor breaches of environmental
regulations. Serious offences, such as deliberate pollution of water bodies or air, are usually
not compoundable and may result in criminal prosecution. It is important to note that
compounding of offences is not a substitute for complying with environmental regulations.
Violators should take proactive measures to comply with environmental laws and regulations
to prevent harm to the environment and avoid penalties or legal action.

There have been several cases related to compounding of offences in environmental law in
India. One such case is the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, commonly known as the
Taj Trapezium case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India allowed compounding of
offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, subject to certain conditions. The court held
that compounding of offences should be allowed only for minor violations and not for serious
offences such as deliberate pollution or violation of emission standards. The court also stated
that the compounding fees should be fixed based on the nature and extent of the damage
caused to the environment, and should not be so low as to encourage violators to repeat the
offence.
Another case related to compounding of offences is the case of Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the SPCBs have the
power to compound offences under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and that such power
should be exercised in a fair and transparent manner.

The court also stated that the compounding fees should be reasonable and should not be so
high as to become a source of revenue for the pollution control boards. The court further
emphasized that compounding of offences should not be used as a tool to encourage violators
to continue with their illegal activities. In conclusion, the courts in India have allowed
compounding of offences in environmental law subject to certain conditions, and have
emphasized that such power should be exercised in a fair and transparent manner, and should
not be used as a tool to encourage violators to continue with their illegal activities.