Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the authority of Pollution Control Boards to impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages for actual or potential environmental harm under the Water and Air Acts.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra ruled that environmental regulators have the constitutional and statutory power to take ex-ante measures, including levying fixed sums of money or requiring bank guarantees, to prevent or remedy pollution. The court clarified that such measures are civil in nature and distinct from punitive actions like fines or imprisonment.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The judgment came in response to an appeal filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, challenging a 2012 Delhi High Court verdict that had restricted its power to impose damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
“We direct that Pollution Control Boards can impose and collect, as restitutionary and compensatory damages, fixed sums of money or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage,” Justice Narasimha wrote in the verdict.
The bench emphasized that the power to impose such damages stems from the broader statutory mandate of the Boards under Sections 33A and 31A, and must be exercised in accordance with subordinate legislation. The Court directed that necessary rules and regulations incorporating principles of natural justice, transparency, and certainty be framed before enforcement.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Justice Narasimha underscored the importance of remedial jurisprudence keeping pace with the evolving scope of environmental rights. “Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies remains shallow,” the bench observed.
The Court reiterated the centrality of the Polluter Pays and Precautionary principles in environmental law. It said that damages could be levied even if legal thresholds were not breached, provided actual or anticipated environmental harm exists.
“Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage,” the bench noted. “Restitutionary and compensatory damages are a necessary concomitant of both the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.”
Clarifying the scope of such damages, the Court said they should not be confused with criminal penalties. “Bringing the culprits to face proceedings is one matter; restoring the environment is another,” it said.
The ruling provides Pollution Control Boards with broader authority to act decisively against polluting industries and activities while ensuring that environmental restoration remains at the forefront of governance.