Do not dilute environment laws

The central government’s move to “decriminalise” some provisions in three legislations that govern offences relating to the environment has given rise to fears that the laws are being diluted and made less stringent. The amendments relate to the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Water and Air Acts, and propose to remove the provision of imprisonment for offenders. Under the existing laws, non-compliance or contravention of their provisions are punishable with a fine or with imprisonment up to five years, or both. Repeat offences attract bigger fines and longer prison terms as punishment. The proposals for amendment of the laws have been put up for public consultation. The government’s note for consultation says that concerns had been raised about the present penal provisions and that had prompted it to “weed out the fear of imprisonment for simple violations” of these laws.

Violation of some provisions of the laws will henceforth invite-only monetary fines. However, serious offences that cause death or injury will invite imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The monetary penalties will be decided by an adjudication officer and will accrue to an ‘Environment Protection Fund’. The proceeds of the fund will be disbursed among affected and aggrieved parties. The quantum of penalties has been raised from Rs 5 lakh and there will be an upper limit of Rs 5 crore. If the damage caused by non-compliance is more than the amount of the penalty, the offender will be liable to pay the penalty equal to the monetary value of the damage.

The proposed amendments will not cover the entire gamut of offences under the environmental laws. But there are apprehensions that the removal of imprisonment as a penalty under some provisions will lead to a more liberal and tolerant view of the offences. It has been argued that there have been very few cases of criminal prosecution of offences under the laws leading to imprisonment and that the removal of the provision for imprisonment would not make any difference. But the possibility of imprisonment acts as a deterrent for many and therefore has value. Most offenders will be prepared to pay the penalties and it will lead to a perverse interpretation of the principle that the polluter should pay. Many will take it to be the freedom to pollute if they can pay. The payment by the polluter will not capture and compensate for the loss in many cases of environmental damage. Big corporates and companies will not be deterred by the prospect of payment of a fine. Delays in decisions on cases relating to the environment will compound the problem. The question of how the proposed amendments will promote the cause of the environment is very relevant.