In a sharp critique of the government's handling of environmental protection, the Supreme Court of India on October 23, 2024, observed that the Environment Protection Act (EPA) has been rendered ineffective due to the Centre's inaction. The bench, consisting of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, expressed concern over the amendments introduced by the 2023 Jan Vishwas Amendment. This amendment replaced criminal punishment for violations of the Act with mere penalties, which, according to the Court, has significantly weakened its impact. The Court highlighted that the inaction has left law enforcement agencies powerless, particularly in dealing with cases like stubble burning, which is a major contributor to air pollution in Delhi NCR.
Supreme Court's Criticism of the Centre's Approach
The Court made it clear that Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which previously allowed for stricter punitive measures, has lost its strength due to the 2023 amendment. Justice Oka pointed out that while the amendment introduced penalties for environmental violations, the necessary procedures to implement these penalties have not been operationalized. Without the establishment of rules or the appointment of adjudicating officers, law enforcement remains toothless, and the EPA has essentially been rendered ineffective.
The Supreme Court's observations came during the hearing of the long-standing MC Mehta case, which focuses on air pollution issues in Delhi NCR, particularly the persistent problem of stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.
Ineffectiveness of Stubble Burning Measures
One of the core issues raised in the case was the failure to take significant action against stubble burning, a leading cause of severe air pollution in Delhi NCR. Despite the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) issuing show-cause notices to officials in Punjab and Haryana, the Court expressed disappointment that no prosecutions had been made under Section 14 of the CAQM Act. The bench noted that while show-cause notices are a step, they are insufficient to deter violations.
Justice Oka remarked, "Law permits you to prosecute, but instead of doing so, show-cause notices are being issued. This merely allows the violators to challenge the orders, delaying any effective action."
Inaction Under the Environment Protection Act
The Court further criticized the Union of India for failing to operationalize the amended Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. According to Justice Oka, the Centre had not framed the rules required to impose penalties under the newly amended Section 15. Additionally, adjudicating officers who are necessary to enforce these penalties have yet to be appointed. This oversight, the Court said, leaves environmental violations unchecked, contributing to worsening air quality and other environmental issues.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, assured the Court that Section 15 would be fully operationalized within ten days. However, the Court's frustration with the delay in implementing penalties was evident throughout the proceedings.
Rates of Environmental Compensation: The Need for Immediate Action
Another critical issue raised during the hearing was the failure of the CAQM to determine proper environmental compensation rates. Under Section 15 of the CAQM Act, the commission has the exclusive power to impose and collect environmental compensation from violators. However, the Court noted that instead of establishing its own compensation rates, the CAQM had been relying on the formula set by the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
The bench emphasized the importance of the CAQM exercising its powers under Section 15 to set and enforce appropriate compensation rates, particularly in cases involving farmers who engage in stubble burning. As Justice Oka highlighted, when farmers are excluded from the penal provisions of the CAQM Act, the imposition of adequate environmental compensation becomes even more crucial.
Coordination Failure: Sub-Committee on Monitoring and Enforcement
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the Sub-Committee on Monitoring and Enforcement, responsible for ensuring compliance with the CAQM's orders, has not been functioning effectively. Absenteeism among committee members has led to delays in enforcement. The Union of India assured the Court that action would be taken to replace persistently absent members, but the Court remained concerned about the lack of progress on the ground.
Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh further emphasized that despite repeated directions from the Court, little has changed in terms of action at the grassroots level. The Court agreed, stating that stricter measures would be necessary against those responsible for ongoing violations.
Deadlines and Next Steps
The Court has now set a two-week deadline for the Centre to amend the rules and provide proper rates of environmental compensation under Section 15 of the CAQM Act. Additionally, both the Centre and the Governments of NCR states were directed to submit compliance reports detailing actions taken on other pollution-related issues, including waste burning, transport emissions, pollution from heavy trucks, and industrial pollution.
The case will next be heard on November 4, 2024, and the Court has made it clear that further inaction will not be tolerated.
Read More: Amazon Great Indian Festival Diwali Offers: Up to 50% Off on Almonds, Cashews & More – The Best Deals for Gifting!- Click Here
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s strong words against the Centre and state governments signal a growing frustration with the lack of effective environmental protection measures in India. The Environment Protection Act, once a powerful tool for safeguarding the environment, has been significantly weakened by the 2023 amendments, and the failure to operationalize penalties has only exacerbated the issue. As air pollution continues to plague Delhi NCR and surrounding areas, the Court has demanded that the Union of India and state authorities step up their efforts to implement meaningful solutions, especially in cases involving stubble burning and other key contributors to environmental degradation.
