Cases of Water ( Prevention and Conrrol) of Pollution Act, 1974
The Parliament, recognizing the importance of water free from pollution enacted the Water
(Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act in 1974 (Water Act, 1974). This Act was enacted to
ensure the wholesomeness of water and to ensure that with industrialization and growth of cities
domestic and industrial effluents and wastewater is not thrown into the streams and rivers
without being treated first. For these purposes, the act also envisages the creation of a Central
Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards in the States.
Although the main legislation dealing with water pollution is the Water Act, of 1974, most of the
litigations have been filed under the general criminal law or Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of India. In the period between 1980 to 1990, there has been a massive increase in
pollution-related litigations. In fact, just from 1990 to 1993, up to thirteen judgments have been
delivered by different courts on this issue.
And a number of prosecutions against polluting industries have been launched under Section 33
of the Water Act. In the Pondicherry Paper Mills case, the Madras High Court ruled that the
remedy under Section 33 was independent of the rights of the Pollution Control Board.
Regarding the nature of evidence in water pollution cases, the Delhi High Court stated in the M/
S Delhi Bottling Co. Put. Ltd. Vs. CPCB, 1986 that samples not taken in strict compliance with
Section21 oftheActareinadmissib1easevidence.The court made it clear that the sample of water
must be lifted from a stream or well only in accordance with the provision of the Water Act. Such
technical requirements of the court only obstruct and dilute the essence of the Act, which is to
prevent water pollution. Taking note of this, the Supreme Court, in the cases of Satish Sabharwal
Vs, State of Maharashtra, 1986, UP PCB Vs. M/s Modi Distillery and Mahmud Ali Vs. State,
repeatedly ruled that technical obstacles in the interpretation of the environmental law will not be
allowed to come in the way of the prevention of water pollution. But implementation of this rule
to its full potential has yet to be done.
An added feature of the present water pollution problem is the utter disregard shown by the
central and State Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) in launching prosecutions against polluters. In
the Francis Barreto case of 1983 this lackadaisical approach of the Central PCB was highlighted.
Again , in Rajiu Ranjan Singh Vs. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court hauled up the Central
PCB for its absolute inaction and for dereliction of duties. In another case, Travancore Cochin
Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Kerala PCB, the Kerala High Court criticized the Central and State PCBs for
issuing conflicting orders.
The constitutionality of Sections 19 and 24 of the Water Act has been challenged before the
Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts in M/s Agganval Textiles Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1981 and 71
Water ( Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1974 M/s Abhilash Textiles Vs. Rajkot
Municipal Corporation, respectively. However, both courts upheld the validity of the provisions,
stating that the power granted by these provisions was not unbridled and did not violate Articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
In most cases, the response of the courts has been to provide injunctive relief. In addition, the
courts have also repeatedly asked and ordered the polluters to conform to the requirements of the
law, failing which they would fact strict, deterrent actions.
Regarding liability for pollution caused by erring industries, the courts have normally ruled in
favor of individual liability. In K.K.Nandi Vs. Arnifabh Bannerjee, 1983 the Calcutta High Court
categorically stated that liability is to be fixed on every person who is in charge of, and was
responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company. Similar ratios were laid down in M/s
Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. Vs. Stare of U.P.. 1992 and J.S.Huja Vs. Sate.
The law relating to water pollution has normally failed to take into account the nature and
uniqueness of the water as a resource. But over the last decade, the courts have begun addressing
larger questions of the environment and, as a result, the right to potable water was recognized,
for example, by the Kerala High Court in F.K. Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990.
Provisions:
Sec: 2, 3, 3(3), 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 28, Part 5 : 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48
