Latest news with #Water(PreventionandControlofPollution)Act
Time of India
2 days ago
- General
- Time of India
TOI impact: NGT puts Chandigarh MC, CPCC on notice over Dadumajra crisis
1 2 Chandigarh: Taking suo motu cognisance of the TOI report, published on July 23, about a public health emergency due to missed deadlines to remove legacy waste at Dadumajra, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued notices to the Chandigarh municipal corporation and Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee (CPCC). The NGT noted, "The news item relates to a major environmental and public health emergency at the Dadumajra dumping site in Chandigarh. The article mentions that the heavy monsoon rains are aggravating the crisis. The article highlights that due to continuous heavy rains, overflowing leachate, contaminated liquid runoff mixed with solid waste, is spreading into nearby fields and even seeping into the Patiala Ki Rao Choe. " According to TOI report, initially, the authorities promised to clear the waste by May 31, but on the same day, a massive fire erupted at the dumping ground, requiring 1.25 lakh litres of water to extinguish the flame. The deadline was then pushed to July, but the garbage is still there. Residents said the situation has deteriorated into a severe public health emergency. They reported a rise in respiratory illnesses, skin diseases, and serious conditions like tuberculosis and cancer. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Beyond Text Generation: An AI Tool That Helps You Write Better Grammarly Install Now Undo The foul odour from the leachate has made it difficult to breathe, and many allege that constant exposure to the stench is affecting their health. Residents have also raised concerns about safety, stating that the leachate flowing onto roads has made them slippery and dangerous. Despite repeated demands from residents for urgent action, they claim that no effective measures have been taken so far. The tribunal, in its order, said, "The news item indicates violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The news item raises substantial issues relating to compliance with the environmental norms and implementation of the provisions of scheduled enactment. "
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
NGT steps in over toxic waste crisis at Chandigarhs Dadumajra Dump
New Delhi [India], August 5 (ANI): The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has initiated suo motu proceedings following media reports of a growing environmental and public health crisis at the Dadumajra dumping ground in Chandigarh. It stated that a news article published on July 23 revealed that leachate–polluted liquid runoff from the accumulated waste–has started contaminating nearby fields and water bodies, including the Patiala Ki Rao Choe. Heavy monsoon rains have worsened the situation, prompting serious concern among local have reported an alarming surge in respiratory illnesses, skin infections, and even serious diseases like tuberculosis and cancer due to toxic waste mixing with rainwater and seeping into residential zones. The unbearable stench from decomposing waste and chemical runoff has further degraded everyday living conditions in the surrounding Tribunal noted several environmental laws had been violated, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The bench, led by Justice Prakash Shrivastava and supported by Dr A Senthil Vel and Dr Afroz Ahmad, attributed the unfolding crisis to ongoing mismanagement and delayed action by scheduled to be cleared by May 31, the dumping site remained unaddressed. On the deadline itself, a massive fire erupted, requiring more than 1.25 lakh litres of water to extinguish. Despite a revised cleanup target set for July, the waste still remains uncleared, heightening response, the Tribunal issued notices to the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee, the Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh, and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). These entities have been instructed to file their affidavits with responses at least one week prior to the next hearing, which is slated for November 3, Tribunal reinforced its authority to act in environmental emergencies, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors., which upheld the NGT's right to intervene without formal petitions. (ANI)
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Pollution boards can seek damages, bank guarantees for future, says Supreme Court
In a significant decision aimed at empowering pollution control boards, the Supreme Court Monday held that they can seek compensation for restitution of damages already caused by polluting entities or demand bank guarantees to prevent any potential future environmental damage. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra set aside the Delhi HC Division Bench order which said the Boards are 'not empowered to levy compensatory damages in exercise of powers 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 on the ground.' The HC held that such levy can be made only by courts, after taking cognisance of offences specified under the Acts. The SC said, 'having considered the principles that govern our environmental laws and on interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts, we are of the opinion that that the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in restrictively reading powers of the Boards. We are of the opinion that these regulators in exercise of these powers can impose and collect, as restitutionary or compensatory damages, fixed sum of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential or actual environmental damage.' The Delhi Pollution Control Board had approached the SC against the HC judgement which quashed the show cause notices issued by the Board to some residential complexes, commercial complexes and shopping malls which were allegedly constructed and were operating without obtaining the mandatory 'consent to establish' and 'consent to operate' under the Water Act and Air Act. The SC judgment said, 'The Board's powers under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act have to be read in light of the legal position on the application of the Polluter Pays principle… This means that the State Board cannot impose environmental damages in case of every contravention or offence under the Water Act and Air Act. It is only when the State Board has made a determination that some form of environmental damage or harm has been caused by the erring entity, or the same is so imminent, that the State Board must initiate action under' the provisions. It directed that 'the powers must be exercised as per procedure laid down by subordinate legislation incorporating necessary principles of natural justice, transparency and certainty.' The court said that 'given their broad statutory mandate and the significant duty towards public health and environmental protection the Boards must have the power and distinction to decide the appropriate action against a polluting entity. It is essential that the Boards function effectively and efficiently by adopting such measures as is necessary in a given situation. The Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished by imposition of penalty or if the situation demands immediate restoration of the environmental damage by the polluter or both.' The bench said, 'Our firm view is that remedial powers or restitutionary directives are a necessary concomitant of both the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and an equal concomitant of the duties of a statutory regulator… The State's 'endeavour to protect and improve the environment' will be partial, if it does not encompass a duty to restitute.' It said that 'of all the duties imposed under Article 51A (fundamental duties), the obligation to conserve and protect water and air, is perhaps the most significant, amidst our climate change crisis. The Water Act and the Air Act institutionalised all efforts and actions that need to be taken to protect air that we breathe and water that we consume by creating the Pollution Control Boards. These Boards functioning as our environment regulators are expected to act with institutional foresight by evolving necessary policy perspectives and action plans.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Green regulators can seek bank guarantees from polluters: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that environmental regulators, such as the Pollution Control Boards, can impose environmental compensation and seek bank guarantees from polluting entities as part of their preventive measures against potential environmental damage. '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.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Pollution Control Boards have power to impose restitutionary damages under Water, Air Acts, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) gave Pollution Control Boards more teeth by declaring their power to impose and collect restitutionary damages to completely restore polluted air and waterbodies back to their original, pristine selves in an ecosystem. 'We direct that Pollution Control Boards can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies 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,' Justice P.S. Narasimha, who authored the judgment, held. The judgment came on an appeal filed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee against a Delhi High Court decision that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages in exercise of powers 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 Bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, further directed that the power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under the Water and Air Acts should be enforced only after issuing the necessary subordinate legislation in the form of rules and regulations under both statutes. The rules must incorporate the basic principles of natural justice. 'According to the polluter pays principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry… The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged,' Justice Narasimha observed. The judgment said the payment of restitutory damages was distinct from charging punitive damages. 'Bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a different matter,' the court distinguished. Enormous responsibilities Justice Narasimha held that the Pollution Control Boards had expansive powers and 'enormous responsibilities' under the Water Act and the Air Act. They had a broad statutory mandate to prevent, control and abate water and air pollution. The provisions under these statutes bestowed the Boards with the power to direct closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process. Further, this power extended to directing the stoppage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service. The laws allow the Boards significant flexibility in deciding the nature of directions. '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, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow. In other words, remedial jurisprudence must keep pace with expanding rights and regulatory challenges. It is not sufficient that courts adopt injunctory, mandatory and compensatory remedies… Remedial powers or restitutionary directives are a necessary concomitant of both the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and an equal concomitant of the duties of a statutory regulator,' Justice Narasimha wrote.
