&w=3840&q=100)
Green regulators can seek bank guarantees from polluters: Supreme Court
'We hold that the environmental regulators, the 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 in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' the Supreme Court said.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that such actions by State Boards are lawful and fall within their powers. However, the Bench stressed that this authority must be exercised fairly and transparently.
'While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that this power must always be guided by two overarching principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this power must be infused with transparency,' the judgment said.
The court emphasized that such action must be distinguished from a penalty.
'There is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage on the one hand; and a punitive action of fine or imprisonment for violations under Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the Air Act on the other hand.'
The Bench also referred to the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, stating that actual environmental degradation is not a prerequisite for demanding compensation. Instead, the potential for environmental harm is sufficient.
'The actual degradation of the environment is not a necessary condition for the application of the polluter pays principle, as long as the offending activities have the potential of degrading the environment," the judgment said.
The Court also echoed the view taken by the National Green Tribunal in Swastik Ispat Pvt Ltd, where the tribunal had upheld the use of bank guarantees as a lawful method of securing environmental compliance.
In the present case, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had appealed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that it was not empowered to levy compensatory 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. The High Court ruled that such action amounted to a penalty under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, the procedure for imposing and collecting compensatory damages outlined thereunder should be the only method available.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Suicide and the burden of social responsibility
The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 893) transcends the confines of a mere legal dispute; it serves as an urgent call for introspection. While directly addressing the tragic death of 17-year-old girl who enrolled in a coaching student preparing for the NEET examination at Aakash Byju's Institute, Vishakhapatnam, the judgment is structured into two primary parts. Part A addresses the specific factual circumstances of X's death and the investigation, while Part B delves into the broader societal issue of student suicides and proposes interim guidelines observing with gravitas that the very "soul of education appears to have been distorted". The Court critiques the contemporary academic paradigm, especially the rigorous competitive examination systems, for fostering a "high-stakes race" where the "joy of learning" is supplanted by "anxiety over rankings", and "failure" is perceived "as a devastating end". The court further lamented that instead of fostering "dignity, confidence, and purpose," education has transformed into a 'pressure-laden path toward narrowly defined goals of achievement, status, and economic security," replacing the "joy of learning" with "anxiety over rankings, results, and relentless performance metrics". Vaccination (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The Court emphasised that mental health is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, reinforced by India's international human rights obligations. It alludes to philosophical insights from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Émile and Jiddu Krishnamurti's Education and the Significance of Life to underscore that true education should be holistic, nurturing reason, autonomy, emotional well-being, and integrated intelligence, rather than fostering fear, competition, or conformity. The current system, the Court argues, is a tragic deviation from these ideals. The disturbing statistics cited in the judgement from the NCRB Accidental Deaths and Suicides report, 2022 are a grim testament to this crisis: India recorded approximately 13,044 student suicides in 2022, with 2,248 attributed directly to examination failure. This number has more than doubled from 5,425 in 2001 to 13,044 in 2022. The Court reiterated the phrase "suicide epidemic" given in Amit Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 384) to describe this alarming rise, attributing a majority of these deaths to "unbearable pressure imposed upon students by institutional and societal expectations". Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist and pioneer in the study of suicide, argued that suicide is a social fact shaped by collective forces rather than individual pathology alone. In India, several key social factors contribute significantly to suicide trends, including the disintegration of families, weakening of social bonds, the isolation that often accompanies urbanisation, property disputes, medical illness, examination stress, and failure in romantic relationships. The Union Government had taken several preventive measures to address student suicides. In 2023, the ministry of education released the UMMEED Guidelines to sensitise schools and identify at-risk students and launched MANODARPAN under the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Yojna to provide mental health support through helplines, counselling, and digital resources. The National Suicide Prevention Strategy (2022), introduced by the ministry of health, adopted a multi-sectoral approach focused on youth. Responding to rising student suicides, especially in hubs like Kota and Hyderabad, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a National Task Force on Student Mental Health, chaired by Justice (retd) Ravindra Bhat, to identify root causes and recommend reforms. The Court, invoking Article 21, recognised mental health as integral to the right to life, dignity, and autonomy. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 further decriminalised suicide attempts, presuming severe stress and mandating State care and rehabilitation instead of punishment. India's obligations under international frameworks such as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and WHO's Mental Health Action Plan reinforced its duty to protect mental health. However, despite these efforts, a unified and enforceable national framework for student suicide prevention remained absent making urgent, coordinated action imperative, especially in high-stress educational environments. Recognising a legislative and regulatory vacuum and the urgency of the crisis, the Court, drawing parallels with the Vishaka Guidelines, issued interim guidelines under Article 32 read with 141 of the Constitution to establish a preventive, remedial, and supportive framework for mental health protection and suicide prevention across all educational institutions. These guidelines include mandates directing all educational institutions in India including schools, colleges, universities, coaching centres, and hostels, regardless of affiliation, to adopt uniform mental health policies; appointment of qualified counsellors in establishments with over 100 students, optimal student-to-counsellor ratios and mentorship during academic transitions; prohibition of unethical academic practices like batch segregation and public shaming; prominent display of suicide helpline numbers; inclusive engagement with marginalised students; confidential grievance mechanisms for harassment and bullying with accountability for institutional inaction; regular parental sensitisation programmes; and a focus on holistic development through extracurricular activities and exam reforms to reduce academic pressure. Suicide is a mirror held up to society, reflecting the deepest anxieties and failures that a person faces. This advocates for a call to action for policymakers, so that through interventions, a deeper connection, compassion, and a sense of community can be formed trying to heal the social fabric and bring hope to those who feel most alone. It also calls for the promotion of teaching well-being and happiness through education, empathy, emotional literacy, and destigmatised dialogue. This article is authored by Jisu Ketan Pattanaik, assistant professor, sociology and Sumit Kumar Singh, research assistant, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
A reminder for Trump: US wanted India to buy Russian crude to keep oil market stable, prices in check
US President Donald Trump seems frustrated with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine, clearly wanting the over three-and-half-year-old war to end, while Putin appears unyielding. The American president, meanwhile, believes he has a lever the he can use to push Putin's buttons. That lever is India's significant oil imports from Russia. Trump has been berating India over its Russian oil imports and pressuring New Delhi into cutting down on imports from Moscow in the hope that threatening or penalising a key trade partner would force the Kremlin's hand into ending the war in Ukraine. While Trump evidently finds it convenient to go after India on the issue at a time when New Delhi and Washington are locked in tense trade pact negotiations, it is worth noting that the US had a major role to play in India ramping up oil imports from Russia, for which New Delhi is now being vilified by Trump and his administration. Over the course of the war in Ukraine, US officials have publicly stated that India's purchase of Russian oil had Washington's endorsement, at least implicitly. In his latest salvo, Trump on Monday said that threatened that he will 'substantially' raise tariffs on New Delhi for profiting from exporting fuels derived from Russian oil. Trump's latest attack came just days after he announced 25 per cent tariffs and an unspecified 'penalty' on India for its defence and energy imports from Russia. Responding sharply to Trump's remarks, India said that while it has been targeted by the US and the European Union for importing oil from Russia, these imports began as its traditional supplies were diverted to Europe, and the US at that time 'actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability'. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2024, Moscow's share in New Delhi's oil imports was less than 2 per cent. The reasons were obvious: Russia was a far-away geography and already had established markets where a bulk of its crude was exported. India, on the other hand, depended significantly on West Asian suppliers like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which are located close by. With much of the West shunning Russian crude following the invasion, Russia began offering discounts on its oil to willing buyers. Indian refiners were quick to avail the opportunity, leading to Russia—earlier a peripheral supplier of oil to India—emerging as India's biggest source of crude within a matter of months, displacing the traditional West Asian suppliers. Russia now accounts for 35-40 per cent of India's total oil imports by volume. As Europe decided to stop the import of refined petroleum fuels from Russia, Indian refiners increased fuel exports to the continent. Apart from alleging that India was helping fund the war in Ukraine by buying Russian oil, critics of India's oil and fuel trade argued that the country's refiners were facilitating a backdoor entry into Europe for fuels made from Russian crude. There was, however, nothing illegitimate about this trade as there was no specific ban on fuel imports from countries that were buying Russian oil. That ban has now been announced by the EU, and is slated to take effect from January 2026. Despite the noise from sections of the West against India over the country's hefty purchases of Russian crude, this shift in oil and petroleum product trade had Washington's blessings, as the US wanted energy markets to remain stable and well-supplied. In a recent interaction with CNBC International, global energy expert and Rapidan Energy Group President Bob McNally said that it was the Biden administration that 'begged' India to buy Russian crude to keep global energy prices in check. 'The Indians must be having some confusion (due to Trump's stance) because Joe Biden went to India after the invasion of Russia and begged them to take Russian oil…they begged India, 'Please take the oil', so that crude prices would remain low, and they did. Now we're flipping around, saying, 'What are you doing taking all this Russian oil?' The point is Trump is serious…he is frustrated with Putin,' said McNally, who served as the Special Assistant to the President on the White House National Economic Council and Senior Director for International Energy on the National Security Council during George W Bush's first term as US President. India's actions in line with US policy: Biden era officials Various US government officials during the Biden presidency also publicly acknowledged that India's actions helped balance the international oil market, and were in line with what the US wanted in order to keep the global market well-supplied. Had most of the Russian oil gone off the market—as happened with Iran and Venezuela—international oil prices would have shot up, which would have hit the global economy that was still fragile coming out of the pandemic. At an event in May 2024, the then US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti said, 'Actually, they (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap. That was not a violation or anything. It was actually the design of the policy because as a commodity we didn't want oil prices going up, and they fulfilled that.' Garcetti was correct, as Rusian oil was and continues to be sanction-free, and only a price cap of $60 per barrel was introduced in December 2022 on seaborne Russian crude by the US and its allies. The cap prohibits export of Russian seaborne crude at over $60 per barrel if the trade involves Western shipping or insurance services. Oil importers like India, which are not part of the price cap coalition comprising G7 countries and their allies, are not bound by the price cap as long as their purchase of Russian oil does not involve any shipping or insurance service from providers in the coalition countries. In April last year, senior US officials had said at a New Delhi event that the US neither expected India to reduce its oil imports from Russia and had not even requested it to do so. The then US Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Eric Van Nostrand had said that the objective of the sanctions and G7 price cap regime was not to push Russian crude out of the market, but to keep it flowing while limiting Kremlin's revenue from oil exports, which in turn impaired Russia's ability to fund the war in Ukraine. 'The price cap is designed to leave Russia with only bad options…We want him (Putin) to choose between three bad things: selling with coalition services under the price cap, selling outside the price cap, or shutting his oil in and not putting it to market. With a strong and robust price cap regime, Putin is going to prefer to sell as much as he can outside the price cap. But in order to maximise his sales outside the price cap, when a large part of the global coalition is already involved in the price cap, he is going to have to offer it cheaper,' Nostrand said. Anna Morris, the then US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crime, said at the same event that from a technical standpoint, Russian oil once refined into petroleum fuels and products could no longer be considered of Russian origin, dismissing the argument that India refiners were facilitating Russian petroleum's entry into Europe. 'I also want to specify that once Russian oil is refined, from a technical perspective it is no longer Russian oil…If it is refined in a country and then sent forward, from a sanctions perspective that is an import from the country of purchase, it is not an import from Russia,' Morris said. While the Biden administration seemed satisfied with the price cap, while letting Russian oil flow, Trump has taken a much more aggressive stance, threatening financial costs on importers of Russian energy. Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
India.com
11 minutes ago
- India.com
Paytm goes China-free, eliminates Chinese ownership in Rs 38000000000..., Indian investor can now...
Paytm Paytm goes China-free: In a major development for investor sentiment and the India digital economy, Jack Ma's Chinese giant Antfin has fully exited Indian financial technology company Paytm. Eliminating all Chinese ownership from the fintech major, the Netherland based Chinse company has sold the entire 5.84% stake in large bulk deals valued at around Rs 3,800 crore. The move is seen as a big positive for Indian investors as it eases regulatory concerns and is expected to boost institutional interest in the stock. What Billionaire Jack Ma's Ant Financial exit indicates? In the recent development, billionaire Jack Ma's Ant Financial exited One97 Communications, the parent company of Paytm, by selling its entire 5.84 per cent stake for around Rs 3,803 crore. Following the stake sale, shares of One97 Communications fell 1.45 per cent to Rs 1,062.60 apiece on the NSE, while the scrip of the company went lower by 1.23 per cent to Rs 1,065 on the BSE, as per a report by PTI news agency. Why Chines exit is a good news for India? Antfin's complete exit removes Chinese ownership from Paytm, which can potentially attract a wider range of investors who were previously cautious due to the Chinese ownership along with geopolitical and regulatory risk. Who does Ant Group belong to? Ant Group, through its affiliate Antfin (Netherlands) Holding BV, has offloaded the shares of Noida-based One97 Communications. Ant Group, formerly known as Ant Financial, is an affiliate company of the Chinese conglomerate Alibaba Group. According to the term sheet reviewed by PTI, the sale involves up to 37.3 million or 3.73 crore equity shares or 5.84 per cent stake in One97 Communications. The shares were sold at a floor price of Rs 1,020 per share, which represents a discount of up to 5.4 per cent to Paytm's closing price of Rs 1,078.20 on the NSE as of Monday. (With inputs from agencies)
