Protection Against Harm to Environment

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Crime Report in India 2022 evinced that the number of cases registered under the six major environmental acts increased notably from previous years . This trend in increasing reporting on major violation of environmental regulations also indicates a greater enforcement activity and mainstreaming of environmental compliance into the legal system.

Environmental crimes are often described as ‘Low Risk, High Reward, which makes it a highly lucrative operation for many criminals, typically because of the lack of strong legislative deterrence, fragmented regulation and lenient penal consequences as compared to other crimes. Environmental harm does not have an identifiable ‘victim’ and its adverse effects are not realised and felt immediately. But the consequences can be profound, irreversible and transnational, not only to the ecosystem but also to humans and societies dependent on them.

In legal remedial terms, environmental harm can be tackled through either civil or criminal mechanisms. In the civil or regulatory jurisdiction i.e., forums like National Green Tribunal, Pollution Control Boards, Constitutional Courts (vide PILs), may direct remedies like closures, compensation/ damages, restoration, regulating license etc.; whereas in criminal persecution, wilful or gross environment violations are treated as offences punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both. While the civil environmental law focuses on various legal principles of polluter pay principle, precautionary principle etc., the criminal environmental law focuses on imposing punitive consequences against the violator, for acts that constitute offences against the environment and, by extension, against society at large.

In this article, we will explore the concept of harm to nature, various legal principles, the legal and policy framework in India including Constitutional and statutory provisions along with judicial precedents, and touch upon some of the international efforts to mitigate and deal with the environmental crimes.

Understanding Environmental Harm and Their Impact

‘Environmental harm or crime (or) green crime’ is a complex and evolving concept with no standard, universally accepted definition. Broadly, it encompasses unlawful acts that cause significant harm to the environment, including ecosystems such as forests, rivers, wetlands, oceans, and the wildlife and communities dependent on them. The United Nations Environment Programme and Interpol define environmental crime as “a collective term to describe illegal activities harming the environment and aimed at benefiting individuals or groups or companies from the exploitation of, damage to, trade or theft of natural resources, including, but not limited to, serious crimes and transnational organized crime.”

Similarly, a notable development in international legal discourse is the push to recognise ‘ecocide’ as a core international crime in the Rome Statute, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. In fact in 2021, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide proposed a legal definition of the term ecocide which means “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”5 While being important, the issue with such a broad definition may be to identify the exact ‘victim’ (whether a river, forest, species, single animal), defining the jurisdiction (domestic, regional, global) and determining culpability (individuals, corporations, or state actors). Persecution for such crimes may be difficult especially when environmental harm occurs in the pursuit of economic development, cultural or local practices, and animal-human conflict.

According to Interpol, environmental crimes may range from ivory trafficking, overfishing, illegal logging or the dumping of hazardous waste. They are often embedded within the same routes used to smuggle weapons, drugs and people. An Interpol study ranked environmental crime as the third-largest criminal sector in the world, after drug trafficking and counterfeiting, with an estimated worth of USD110- 281 billion annually.

Environmental or green crimes occur due to both structural and systemic vulnerabilities including transnational nature of crimes, poor enforcement, widespread corruption and collusion, lack of prosecution, limited international coordination and regulatory frameworks. It is also because of high demand for exotic and rare animal and plant products and poverty and economic desperation which fuel such illegal acts. A paradox is that even an effective attempt to crack down on such supply can increase black-market prices, thereby incentivising more illegal activity.7 Nevertheless, such harm is rarely isolated and is often interlinked with other criminal activities like money laundering, human trafficking, smuggling etc.

Unsurprisingly, the consequences are multi-dimensional, often having ripple effects:
● Environmental Effects: Environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change, damage to natural resources.
● Social Effects: Displacement of communities, cultural loss, health risks, exacerbating poverty and inequality.
● Economic Effects: Loss of government revenues, illicit depletion of natural capital, and disruption of sustainable livelihoods.
● Political and Security Effects: Cross-border smuggling, money laundering, funding armed groups, fueling conflicts, destabilizing fragile regimes.

Principles of Environmental Law

Environment Law principles act as guidance for policy-makers, legislators and judiciary that have emerged over the decades from international conventions, treaties, judicial pronouncements, legislations etc. Some of these are discussed below:

1. Polluters Pay: Polluters Pay is a fundamental principle which primarily means those who pollute the environment must pay the cost of such degradation, in terms of the damage and the restoration. It acts as a double-edged sword, wherein, it discourages pollution, and also holds individuals/ industries strictly liable even if pollution was unintentional.

The United Nations Environment Programme and Interpol define environmental crime as a collective term to describe illegal activities harming the environment and aimed at benefiting individuals or groups or companies from the exploitation of, damage to, trade or theft of natural resources, including, but not limited to, serious crimes and transnational organized crime

The principle 16 of the Rio Declaration (1992) states, “National authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that ‘the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,’ with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.”

The courts in India have actively applied the principle in the judicial pronouncement. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)8 , several chemical factories in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, discharged toxic sludge, contaminating river and groundwater, rendering land infertile and forcing villagers to migrate. The Supreme Court imposed penalty worth crores on Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd. (HACL) and ordered compensation and environmental restoration. It was held that the polluter is responsible not only for damage to people but also for restoring the environment. Similarly in the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997)9 , unregulated shrimp farming in Chilika and Pulicat lakes resulted in soil salinity, water pollution, and destruction of mangroves. The Apex Court ordered to ban intensive shrimp farming in ecologically fragile areas, to provide compensation to affected communities and directed the formation of a Coastal Management Authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

2. Strict Liability: Evolving from the landmark case of Ryland vs Fletcher (1868), this common law remedy states that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The doctrine is particularly relevant in matters related to injuries caused to person and property from explosions, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation etc. However, strict liability includes certain defenses or exceptions which differentiate it from absolute liability. These are – Act of God, Consent of the Plaintiff, Act of Third Party and Statutory Authority.

3. Absolute Liability: Simply put, Absolute Liability is Strict Liability sans the exceptions, i.e., the liability of the accused party is so grave that no form of defence employed is sufficient excuse for their non-performance of practicing reasonable care and failing to recognize their duty towards the society and environment. Following the Bhopal Gas tragedy, the Indian judiciary felt that doctrine of strict liability is not sufficient to deal with such grave and tragic incidents and there is a need that defendants take responsibilities without resorting to any defences. The genesis of absolute liability came about in another landmark case of MC Mehta vs Union of India10 (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986) wherein P.N. Bhagwati, J. coined this new concept and held that the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and no enterprise can say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.

4. Precautionary Principle: Better safe than sorry! This principle empowers courts and governments to act proactively to stop environmental harm before it happens, even if there’s no complete scientific certainty. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992) states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures.

The principle was observed in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)11, wherein the Supreme Court cited the definition of precautionary principle as:

a) Authorities must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
b) If there’s risk of serious or irreversible damage, the absence of scientific proof cannot delay protective measures.
c) The ‘Onus of proof’ is on the actor or the developer/ industrial to show that his action is environmentally benign.

5. Doctrine of Public Trust: The Doctrine of Public Trust says that the government holds natural resources like forests, rivers, air, and seas in trust for the public, and must protect and preserve them for current and future generations. The State cannot use or give away these resources for private or commercial gain if it harms the public interest. The principle was recognized in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath12. This doctrine ensures public access, environmental protection, and intergenerational justice.

Think of the government as a trustee; it doesn’t own the environment and it manages it on behalf of all people.

Environmental Legal and Regulatory Framework in India

1. Constitutional Jurisprudence
The Indian judiciary has time and again widened the scope of fundamental rights to include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. In the recent case of MK Ranjithsinh vs Union of India13, the Supreme Court of India was faced with a peculiar dilemma between safeguarding the natural habitat of endangered Great Indian Bustard in Rajasthan and mitigating the impact of climate change by promoting solar power plants in these areas. In this landmark case, the court recognised that Article 21 (Right to life) and Article 14 (Right to equality) of the Constitution are “important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.” Similarly in MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court laid down that Article 48A (Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life) and the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) (to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures) must be interpreted in light of Article 21, and that “Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for ‘life,’ would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The judiciary has also upheld restrictions on economic activities under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession), noting that environmental protection constitutes a reasonable restriction. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India14 – certain tanneries were discharging effluents in the holy river Ganga which was causing water pollution. The court while recognizing the unemployment that might usher due to the closure of the tanneries, but, still ordered – so keeping health, life and ecology holds greater importance in the eyes of law.

2. Key Environmental Legislations
There are many targeted environmental specific legislations and guidelines in India which empower the government to regulate, prohibit, and penalise activities that lead to pollution, biodiversity loss, and ecological degradation.

National authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that ‘the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,’ with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment

Key statutes include:
a) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
b) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
c) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
d) The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
e) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

In addition, several ancillary laws and rules contain environmental provisions. These include:
a) The Factories Act, 1948 which mandate safety and waste management standards in industrial units.
b) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which regulates vehicular emissions.
c) The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 requires industries to compensate victims of industrial accidents involving hazardous substances.
d) Rules and notifications such as the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Solid Waste Management Rules, Hazardous Waste Rules, and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter, EPA) is an umbrella legislation enacted to provide for the protection, improvement of the environment, and prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property. Section 3 grants powers to the central government to take all the measures necessary. Sections 7 & 8 prohibits industries to discharge/ emission of pollutants beyond prescribed standards and compliance for persons handling hazardous substances. Section 15 lays down the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act which may extend to fifteen lakh rupees. Moreover, under the 2023 Amendment, the proviso which stated that a person (with respect to companies) is not liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence, has been deleted. Another welcome amendment is the erstwhile Section 24(2) which provided that if an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the EPA and another Act; the offender shall be punished under the latter and not under the EPA, is also deleted. However, Section 19 mandates a private individual to provide prior notice of 60 days before filing a complaint which may delay or weaken citizen participation in enforcement.

Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for ‘life,’ would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, commonly known as the Water Act, is a landmark legislation to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution. Recently, Parliament enacted the 2024 Amendment Act which applies to the whole of the States of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan and the Union territories, and it shall apply to such States which adopts this Act by resolution passed in that behalf under clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution. Section 24 of the Act prohibits certain acts like the use of streams or wells for disposal of polluting matter etc. However, the element of ‘knowingly’ as a requirement may create a significant challenge, as negligent acts may fall outside its scope. Earlier, Section 41 to 44 of the Act provided imprisonment or fine or both for non-compliance and contraventions to the provisions of this Act. The new amendment, like in EPA, decriminalises offences related to water pollution and non-compliance, but, has enhanced the quantum of penalties.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 which was last amended in 2022, provides for the conservation, protection and management of wildlife and for matters connected with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. It provides for the creation of protected areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, conservation reserves, and community reserves, and prohibits activities that could harm species or their habitats. The Section 9 of the Act prohibits the hunting of wild animals listed in Schedules I and II, except as provided under Sections 11 and 12 therein, such as when an animal poses a threat to human life or property or is required for scientific research under permit. Similarly, Section 17A of the Act prohibits the picking or uprooting of certain specified plants, while Sections 17C and 17D regulate the cultivation and dealing of such plants. These provisions are supported by a network of enforcement and management bodies/ officials like Director of Wildlife Preservation, Chief Wildlife Warden, National Wildlife Board (with PM as Chairperson) and State Wildlife Board (CM as Chairperson), Central Zoo Authority, NTCA, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. Section 51 of the Act provides for penalties for contravention of various provisions of this Act, prescribing imprisonment for term ranging up to three to seven years, or with fine which may be between Rs.25,000 to 5 lakh rupees, or with both. The Section 57 of the Act significantly strengthens enforcement by putting the burden of proof on the accused.

Another significant development was the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. Section 14 of the NGT Act lays down that the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Under Section 16 therein, the tribunal has appellate jurisdiction over decisions, orders, or directions issued under such environmental laws. Under Section 15 of the NGT Act, the tribunal is empowered to award compensation, restoration, and ecological restitution.

3. Criminal Law
The erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 had provisions like Section 268 (Public Nuisance), 277 (Fouling water of public spring or reservoir), 278 (Making the Atmosphere Noxious to Health). These are retained in the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as Section 270, 279 and 280 respectively. The quantum of penalty and term of imprisonment has increased. However, it may be noted that there is no imprisonment for public nuisance and making the atmosphere noxious for health. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand15 (1980)is one of the early cases where progressive approach taken by the Supreme Court related to environment pollution and sanitation. It addresses the question of whether courts can compel a statutory authority to perform its public duties, particularly in the realm of sanitation and public health. Upholding the conditional order directing the municipality to undertake several corrective measures, Justice V.R Krishna Iyer opined, “Wherever there is a public nuisance, the presence of Section 133 CrPC must be felt,” and that “human rights under Part III of the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision.”

International Legal Instruments

According to the UNODC Report titled, ‘The Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect the Environment: Part 1 – The Landscape of Criminalization,’ there is no single international legal instrument that comprehensively protects the environment, and neither criminalizes all behaviours that harm the environment, nor defines crimes that affect the environment. The regulations are complex and unharmonised and the level of protection to the environment is related to the ‘conditions of each country.’ For example, Southern African countries regard offences related to air pollution, forests, minerals, waste and wildlife as criminal acts. However, no Micronesian countries regard violations of forest legislation as a crime, perhaps because commercial forestry is not an issue in the region.16 Despite such issues, several jurisdictions have taken progressive steps to address gaps in tackling green crimes. Some examples may include, Interpol’s Environmental Security Unit operates through four specialised teams – Fisheries, Forestry, Pollution, and Wildlife – to assist law enforcement agencies across the globe in dismantling transnational environmental crime networks. Similarly, the UNODC Border Management Branch’s Environment Team supports member states in addressing crimes involving wildlife, forests, illegal mining, and trafficking of natural resources. At legislative level, the European Parliament adopted the Environmental Crime Directive (2024), introducing stringent penalties for environmental offences like illegal timber trade, water depletion, chemical violations, and ship-related pollution including fines up to millions and 10 years’ imprisonment. Belgium became the first European country to recognise ecocide as both a national and international crime. Ecuador and Bolivia have already pioneered in granting legal rights to nature itself, acknowledging the environment’s intrinsic right to exist, regenerate, and evolve. Denmark’s Climate Act (2020) legally binds the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels) and implement a carbon tax – an approach also adopted by Singapore under its Carbon Pricing Act, 2019 and further evolved as European Union’s initiatives such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and Deforestation Rules are in action as of 1st October 2023.

Conclusion

In India, while the civil and regulatory law in the environment is well established, the green criminal jurisprudence still needs teeth and harmonisation. The overlapping scope of various environmental laws, the modest penalties prescribed, and the procedural hurdles such as limited standing and delayed prosecutions, have made it difficult to treat environmental violations with the seriousness they deserve. Though many major statutes have decriminalised contraventions, it is important to impose substantial damages on polluters and effectively implement the directives for restoration by way of following judicial precedents and legal principles, maintaining corporate responsibility towards the environment. To address the growing crisis of pollution and ecological degradation, and as India is proactively committed to sustainability, the efforts are being made to adopt successful global practices, and work towards a more harmonised legal regime that integrates both criminalization and restorative approaches. This may include imposing stricter penalties, expanding the definition of ‘polluter’ to include industries, individuals, and even agricultural runoff, and, strengthening knowledge base, increasing civil participation and building a stronger institution for investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of environmental offences

Ref. No.	Details
1	National Crime Records Bureau, “Crime in India 2022 – Statistics (Volume – 2)”
2	Financial Action Task Force, “Money Laundering from Environmental Crime”, July 2021
3	Madhuker Sharma, “Environmental Criminal Law Jurisprudence & Enforcement of Wildlife Protection Law”, HPNLU Journal of Environment and Disaster Management Vol. I, 2020
4	UNEP–INTERPOL Rapid Response Assessment, “The Rise of Environmental Crime” (2016)
5	June 2021: Historic Moment as Independent Expert Panel Launches Definition of Ecocide, available at: https://www.stopecocide.earth/legal-definition
6	INTERPOL, “World Atlas of Illicit Flow”, 2018
7	Benjamin Kurlyo, “Explainer: What Is Environmental Crime?”, available at: https://earth.org/explainer-what-is-environmental-crime/
8	1996 AIR 1446
9	1997 (2) SCC 87
10	1987 AIR 1086
11	1996 (5) SCC 647
12	AIRONLINE 1996 SC 711
13	2024 INSC 280
14	AIR 1988 SC 1037
15	(1980) 4 SCC 162
16	United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), “The Global Analysis on Crimes that Affect the Environment: Part 1 – The Landscape of Criminalization” (2025)

---

Read More