The Environment Protection Act 1986, is an umbrella legislation and was outcome of

Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984. The Act of 1986 was enacted under Article 253[1] of
Indian Constitution, for implementation of the decisions at United Nations
Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972 in order to provide for
progressive policy for protection of ecosystem and ecology.[2] The legislation aims at
not only protection but also improvement of environment. It extends to air, water
and land and their intercourse with natural and human environment. It considers the
wholesome definition of ‘environment’.
When the bill was introduced, by the then Minister of State for Environment and
Forest Z.R Ansari, he stated, that though there are many legislations in accordance
with environment but there is a need for general legislation to allow coordination
among different regulatory bodies and ensure speedy response in case of violation.
[3] Under the statute, powers lie with the Central Government through Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change to take any step to measure and control
pollution and issue directions to stop or close any industry.[4] If there is violation of
any provision of the Act, it leads to punishment.[5] A life has been brought to this
legislation through further enactments like Environment Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006, Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011 and Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016.
Further, Environment (Protection) Rules were also laid down for setting up of
standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants.
The Act characterizes certain activities like excess emission, handling hazardous
substances in violation of procedural safeguards and obstruction of person
empowered to enter and inspect as offences for which a penalty is imposed. The Act
addresses offences committed by companies and Government departments
separately.

Notification for protection of ecologically sensitive areas are issued from time to time
in accordance to the need under Environment Protection Act.[6] It provides for
stringent laws on pollution, hazard emissions or discharge, deforestation etc. which
requires a pressing need to overcome such environmental problems. The very idea of
locus standi as introduced in Air or Water Act provides for only concerned authorities
to initiate an action. However, the concept of PIL has been given preference in the
Act.

Powers can be issued by Court under the Act. For example, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India[7], the court issued various directions in order to control the traffic and
vehicular pollution. Further, in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India[8], Supreme court emphasized that it is duty and responsibility of Union
Territories and Coastal States to take care of the coastline by issuing notification and
such to be implemented properly. Also, in Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings Pvt.
Ltd.[9], the court adhered to the idea that notification having being issued by central
government, there should not be any violation and prohibited areas should not allow
any industrial activity around CRZ notification to protect ecological environment.
In Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India & Ors.[10], the Supreme Court
interpreted the polluter pay principle and held that absolute liability for harming the
environment cover not only the victims but also includes the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,[11] the Court while dealing with water pollution of
the river Ganga issued directions to the Nagar Mahapalikas which have jurisdiction
over the areas through which the Ganga flows to submit to the SPCBs the plan
regarding the disposal of waste, sewerage and treatment of trade effluents
discharged into the river. The Court also held that it is the duty of the Central
Government under Article 48A of the Constitution to introduce compulsory lessons
on environmental protection in schools. Further, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,[12]
the Court gave directions in order to spread awareness on environment protection
through mass media, information films and educational courses.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case),[13] the Court held that
industries located in the Taj Trapezium Zone using coke or coal are causing pollution
at higher levels and therefore, these industries have to switch over to natural gases
or must stop functioning or try relocating themselves.
The court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[14], considered the rate of falling
groundwater level and directed the Central Government to appoint the “Central
Groundwater Board” as an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
This Board would be empowered to regulate groundwater management and address
the issue of indiscriminate withdrawal of groundwater.
In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[15], a PIL was filed under Article
32 of the Constitution on behalf of the people living in and around the Nilgiri forests
on the Western Ghats. The petitioner challenged the validity of the actions by the
state authorities which amount to destruction of the tropical rain forests of the
region which he alleged were a clear violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Reiterating the public trust doctrine, the Court
held that common properties like rivers, seashore, forest and the air are held by the
Government in trust for the free and unimpeded use of the general public.
Though the Act covers air, water and land, however, it ignored modern problems like
traffic, noise, congestion, slums etc. Moreover, under Section 11[16], the growing
technology has not been taken into consideration. The idea of checking the air or
water samples can be done through mobile laboratories without causing any delay.
The current provisions were formulated with the idea of protecting guilty rather than
environment. It was a great deal to introduce such a heavy punishment in case of
violation or environment degradation and the Act gained much publicity due to this,
however, no minimum punishment has been prescribed which acts as a loophole
here.

Under Section 24[17] of the Act, it is mentioned that in case of any act committed,
counts as offence under this Act or any other law, then the offender shall be
punished under the other act. The ever idea of formulation of the Act goes in vain.
Moreover, there are many aspects left uncovered under different acts like noise
pollution and hence, remedy lies just in torts or as nuisance in Code of Criminal
Procedure. Also, ‘Judicial review’ in case of decisions of State is not available.[18]
Also, there is an ambiguity in jurisdiction and distribution of powers. A lot of time
and effort is required to understand the arrangements and regulations and hierarchy
in institutions. This ultimately leads to delay and problems arises out of non-
compliance. For example, considering the case of solid waste management, it
involves municipality, concerned pollution board and the concerned department
having jurisdiction over the land where the waste is dumped.[19]

There is lack of civil administrative authority thereby limiting the effectiveness of

There lies a problem in coordination between Central Pollution Control Board and
State Pollution Control Board in various matters like urban development and
municipal waste management, industries and industrial facilities etc. Further there is
institutional incapacity as proper training is not given to staff.[20] Even the study
conducted in case of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, it was found that they
were inefficient in handling the matter due to increase in responsibilities, lack of
financial, human resources and deterrence mechanisms.[21]

Despite its disadvantages, the courts in India have been successful in implementing
the legislation as evident from the cases above. Pollution level in the country has
been controlled with time due to assistance of court.[22] However, if certain changes
or amendments are done to the legislation as reflected above, it can surely increase
its efficiency as well as the efficacy of the court to solve the matter.