THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION)

ACT, 1986 (EPA)

Environment (Protection) Act was enacted in the year 1986. It was enacted with
the main objective to provide the protection and improvement of environment and for matters
connected therewith. The Act is one of the most comprehensive legislations with pretext to
protection and improvement of environment.
The Constitution of India also provides for the protection of the environment.
Article 48 A of the Constitution specifies that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51 A further
provides that every citizen shall protect the environment.
It is now generally accepted that environment is threatened by a wide variety of
human activities ranging from the instinctive drive to reproduce its kind to the restless urge of
improving the standards of living, development of technological solutions to this end, the vast
amount of waste, both natural and chemical, that these advances produce. Paradoxically, this
urge to grow and develop, which was initially uncontrolled is now widely perceived to be
threatening as it results in the depletion of both living and non-living natural resources and life
support systems. The air, water, land, living creatures as well as the environment in general is
becoming polluted at an alarming rate that needs to be controlled and curbed as soon as possible.
The 1986 Act was enacted in this spirit. From time to time various legislations
have been enacted in India for this purpose. However, all legislations prior to the 1986 Act have
been specific relating to precise aspects of environmental pollution. However, the 1986 Act was a
general legislation enacted under Article 253 (Legislation for giving effect to international
agreements.Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament
has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing
any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at
any international conference, association or other body) of the Constitution, pursuant to the
international obligations of India. India was a signatory to the Stockholm Conference of 1972
where the world community had resolved to protect and enhance the environment.
The United Nations conference on human environment, held in Stockholm in June
1972, proclaimed that Man is both creator and molder of his environment, which gives him
physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual
growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has reached
when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology man has acquired the power to

transform his environment in countless ways and on unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's
environment, the natural and manmade are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of
basic human rights even the right to life itself.
While several legislations such as The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were enacted
after the Conference, the need for a general legislation had become increasingly evident. The
EPA was enacted so as to overcome this deficiency.
The main objective of the Act was to provide the protection and improvement of
environment and for matters connected therewith. Other objectives of implementation of the EPA
are:
To implement the decisions made at the UN Conference on Human Environment held at
Stockholm in June, 1972.
To enact a general law on the areas of environmental protection which were left uncovered by
existing laws. The existing laws were more specific in nature and concentrated on a more
specific type of pollution and specific categories of hazardous substances rather than on general
problems that chiefly caused major environmental hazards.
To co-ordinate activities of the various regulatory agencies under the existing laws
To provide for the creation of an authority or authorities for environmental protection
To provide a deterrent punishment to those who endanger human environment, safety and
health.

POWERS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO

TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT AND
IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT
According to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government shall have the
power to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting
and improving the quality of the environment and preventing controlling and abating
environmental pollution.
Such measures may include measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:
a) co-ordination of actions by the State Governments, officers and other authorities- (a) under
this Act, or the rules made there under, or (b) under any other law for the time being in force
which is relatable to the objects of this Act;
b) planning and execution of a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control and
abatement of environmental pollution;
c) laying down standards for the quality of environment in its various aspects;
d) laying down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various
sources whatsoever: Provided that different standards for emission or discharge may be laid
down under this clause from different sources having regard to the quality or composition of the
emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from such sources;
e) restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries,
operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain
safeguards;
f) laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause
environmental pollution and remedial measures for such accidents;
g) laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances;
h) examination of such manufacturing processes, materials and substances as are likely to cause
environmental pollution;
i) carrying out and sponsoring investigations and research relating to problems of environmental
pollution;

j) inspection of any premises, plant, equipment, machinery, manufacturing or other processes,

materials or substances and giving, by order, of such directions to such authorities, officers or
persons as it may consider necessary to take steps for the prevention, control and abatement of
environmental pollution;
k) establishment or recognition of environmental laboratories and institutes to carry out the
functions entrusted to such environmental laboratories and institutes under this Act;
l) collection and dissemination of information in respect of matters relating to environmental
pollution;
m) preparation of manuals, codes or guides relating to the prevention, control and abatement of
environmental pollution;
n) such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of
securing the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for
the purpose of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or
authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising
and performing such of the powers and functions (including the power to issue directions under
section (5) of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures with respect to
such of the matters referred to in sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the order and subject to
the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such order, such
authority or authorities may exercise and powers or perform the functions or take the measures
so mentioned in the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by this Act to
exercise those powers or perform those functions or take such measures.
As considerable adverse environment impact has been caused due to degradation
of the environment with excessive soil erosion and water and air pollution due to certain
development activities therefore it is necessary to protect the environment. This can be achieved
only by careful assessment of a project proposed to be located in any area, on the basis of an
environment impact assessment and environment management plan for the prevention,
elimination or mitigation of the adverse impacts, right from the inception stage of the project.
The Central Government has passed certain notifications laying that the expansion
or modernization of any existing industry or new projects listed shall not be undertaken in any
part of India, unless it gets environmental clearance by the Central Government, or the State
Government.

POWERS OF THE COURT

The Act does not curtail the powers of the Supreme Court. It has from time to
time in various matters issued directions and orders to control pollution. Some such important
cases pertaining to protection of environment are:
Directions issued to control vehicular pollution
In M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1998) 6 SCC 63, in order to control the chaotic traffic
conditions and vehicular pollution, the Supreme Court issued the following directions.
(a) All commercial/transport vehicles which are more than 20 years old should be phased out and
not permitted to ply in Delhi after October 1998;
(b) All such commercial /transport vehicles which are 17 to 19 years old (3200) shall not be
permitted to ply in the National Capital Territory, Delhi after 1998;
(c) Such of the commercial /transport vehicles which are 15 and 16 years old (4962) shall not be
permitted to ply after December 31, 1998.
The Supreme Court made this order applicable to all commercial/transport vehicles whether
registered in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or outside (but ply in Delhi) which are of
more than stipulated age and which do not have any authority to ply in Delhi.

PROTECTION OF COASTLINE OF INDIA

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India1 the Supreme Court in
regard to the 600 kms long coast line emphasized that that it would be the duty and responsibility
of the coastal states and Union Territories in which the stretch exists, to see that the notifications
issued, declaring the coastal stretches should be properly and duly implemented. Further the
various restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operation or process, etc. in the
regulation Zone should be strictly enforced.
In the same case the court enunciated the principle further that the polluter pays. Once the
activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is
liable to make good the loss caused to any other person irrespective of the fact whether he took
1 (1996) 5 SCC 281

reasonable care while carrying on his activity. Under this principle it is not the role of the
Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage or in carrying out
remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution
incident on the taxpayer. The responsibility of repairing the damage is that of the offending
industry.

OTHER CASES
In Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others2 the polluter
principle as interpreted by the Supreme Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the
environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of
restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the
process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the
individual sufferer as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
In Goa Foundation v Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd 3 the court observed that with a view to
protect the ecological balance in the coastal areas, notifications having been issued by the
Central Government, there ought not to be any violation and prohibited activities should not be
allowed to come up within the area declared as CRZ notification. The court also emphasised that
no activities which would ultimately lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and
ecological destruction should be allowed. 4

2 (1996) 5 SCC 647

3 (2001) 2 SCC 97
4 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wlife.htm

LANDMARK CASE
1. M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
The threat of environmental pollution to mankind has been realized by one and all. A major
source of pollution is industry which has been affecting air, water and soil in many adverse ways
along with other polluting agencies. Air pollution is a source and a constant problem which has
brought significant deterioration in the urban areas, more than in rural areas. In many countries
and parts of the world environment protection is currently becoming a growing need on priority
basis for all partners of a civilized society. Governments, environmentalists and the three actors
(i.e. management, union and state) of industrial relations system are concerned about protection
of the environment.
The Supreme court judgment of 1996 ordered the Relocation/closure of 168 Industrial
units in Delhi. The court laid down very clear guidelines to protect the rights of workers
regardless of whether the owners of the affected units chose to relocate the units or not. The
workmen employed in these 168 industries were entitled to the rights and benefits indicated
below:

The workers shall have continuity of employment at new place in case of relocation.
Also, the terms and conditions of their employment shall not be altered.
The period between closure of the industry and its restart at the place of relocation shall
be treated as active employment and shall be paid wages for the same.
The workmen employed in industries which failed to relocate shall be deemed to have
been retrenched with effect from November 30, 1996 provided they have been in
continuous service for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the said
date. They shall be paid compensation. The court decided that six years wages shall be
payable to workmen of those industries who decided to close down.
Closure/relocation affects workers not only economically but also psychologically. Such
decisions are likely to change the life-style of the worker and his family.

November 2000 replayed on a larger scale, what November 1996 had initiated. If the first
spate of industrial closures in 1996 had targeted 168 hazardous industries in the capital for
relocation, this time round the figure was completely vague and could have varied from
anywhere between 30, 000 to 90, 000 units. If the closures of 1996 followed the Supreme Court
orders of 8 July that year, this time the immediate impetus came from this highest institution of
the country that is meant to ensure justice at large. Neither then nor now did the Court consider
the workers as interested parties whose opinions needed to be taken into account. The workers
were treated as objects, alongside machinery, that were simply to be shunted from one place to
another. There has been an enormous exodus of the working class population in Delhi following
the Supreme Courts directive to the Delhi Govt. on September 12, 2000 to shut down all

polluting industries in residential and non-conforming areas. While rumors were rife about free
and extra coaches attached to trains heading for Bihar, there is no denial of the thousands
gathered on platforms for trains leaving to Bihar and the same chaos at the Anand Vihar bus
terminus for those heading for UP. There were hundreds who left for their villages in Rajasthan,
Haryana and other states too. This has been only the beginning of a phase of closures that is
going to affect 1.25 lakh small units and around an approximate figure of 25 lakh workers.
This Supreme Court order is part of the series of orders in 1996 that led to the closure of
industries categorized as hazardous or noxious as per the Second Master Plan of Delhi (1990).
The few workers who were able to engage in litigation and insist upon the court and management
fulfilling their due were the larger units where the workforce was organized. Barring these few,
none of the other workers belonging to the 168 industries that were closed in 1996 were paid any
compensation despite the court ordering 6 years compensation unlike this time. There is no
mention whatsoever of the plight of these lakhs of workers in this case in terms of compensation
or employment in case of relocation.
The basis for the Supreme Courts decision to close down these lakhs of factories is the
White paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan (Ministry of Environment and Forests,
GOI 1997). The problem is summed as being the rise in population and growth in economic
activity that has resulted in an increase in pollution in Delhi. The Action Plan further envisages
the deflection of 20 lakhs from Delhi.
However, the problem of Delhis pollution can never be solved by throwing out such a
vast workforce on whose labor this city is built and continues to thrive on. Besides, it is these
workers who bear the brunt of pollution at their workplaces. Instead of improving their lives and
working conditions, they are being made to pay a heavy price in the name of pollution by being
driven to near destitution.
The hyperactive judiciary and the ineffective executive have never seen to the
implementation of pollution control measures by the State and industrialists. All measures to
cleanse the city can be legitimate but the question is that why should it be done only at the
expense of the poor and the toiling class by pushing them to the brink of starvation. Why are the
rich and those in power never held responsible for state of the city? It is not as if the government
and the industrialists are incapable of setting up the required CETPS and the ETPs even in the
case of small-scale industries. The motive transparently seems to be to get rid of workers.
These polluting industries have been running for years in the complete knowledge of the
various ministries, pollution control boards, central and state governments and several other
bodies. Water, land and electricity have been generously doled out to whoever was capable of
getting it through hook or by crook. Where profiteering was the sole motive, all eyes remained
either shut or actively connived. It is this capitalist system in its mindless race of profits that
pollutes the air and water, degrades the environment and squeezes the life out of an entire
working class to ultimately throw them out of a city built by their own labor. The state should
know that where environment matters, so do people. It is the survival and dignity of this majority
that can determine all else. We must also understand that the workers working in these industries
and the poor of the city are the worst sufferers of these polluting units. Any plan to relocate these

industries must include a no. of other simultaneous actions. Some groundwork has to be done
before the relocation of these industries, e.g., the alternative sites must be developed and some
infrastructural facilities be made available before any order for relocation of these units is
implemented. The govt. must also ensure that after shifting, the industries must adhere to the
norms required to make them non-polluting. In the absence of such measures the above orders
would not bring in any qualitative change in the lives of the workers working in these units. In
addition to these the govt. is also required to ensure that the workers, who in the process of
relocation or closure of these units lose their employment are properly compensated or
rehabilitated.
In the 1996 orders of the Supreme Court that affected around 50, 000 workers, the
majority got neither compensation nor employment in the relocated industries despite the court
ordering so. This time both the courts and the government maintain a stony silence on the plight
and future of these lakhs of workers. It is pursuit of the policies of liberalization and the
restructuring of the entire economy that is taking a heavy toll on the entire working class as we
had anticipated in the early 90s.
Delhi has also been witnessing a spate of slum demolitions especially of land belonging
to the DDA, NDMC, MCD and the Northern Railways. On February 16, 2000, the Court ordered
the government to remove the slums and unauthorized colonies from all public land. This in
effect would render homeless an entire 30 lakhs of people. There is no talk of rehabilitation and
existing efforts of relocation in far-flung areas has only resulted in people being completely cut
off from their places of work. This relentless assault on both the livelihood and housing of the
urban poor in Delhi is an increasing phenomenon in other cities too.
Pollution is the continuing thread of the two judgments. As the Court put it in an order
widely reported in the press, health is more important than livelihood. Could it be that the
honorable court might not have realized the utter absurdity of the statement it was making? If it
were the same set of people both parts of this statement were referring to, then it clearly made no
sense: the health of X cannot be more important than Xs livelihood; if anything, it might be a
function of the latter. More likely, what the Supreme Court had in mind but wanted to hedge
when it made this statement was that the health of some was more important than the livelihood
of others. In other words, in a deeply class divided society, it was taking sides alongside the rich
and the powerful.
In the first lot, that of 1996, the 168 industries that were closed down, the majority were
those who were in any case looking for excuses to shut down, many of them being sunset
industries like textiles. At any rate the owners wanted to divert their capital to more lucrative and
less risky avenues. Many of them had large premises in prime areas of Delhi and the sheer real
estate value of these lands could make it worth their while to sell off their share of these lands or
put it to other use. In this round of closures, however the picture is different. Nobody seemed to
know what were the industries that were being shut down. According to the Court order of 12
September, 2000, twenty-seven industries, said to be undisputedly polluting ones, including
those producing acids, chemicals, those involved in dyeing and bleaching, electroplating and
those making glass products, plastic dye, polythene and PVC compounds, among other things,

were listed to be shut down. It followed up this order with yet another one on January 25, 2001,
wherein it decreed that all potentially polluting industries will be.
By the time the order reached the implementation stage, it was being said that all nonconforming industries would be shut down. Units in non-conforming areas, according to the
Delhi Master Plan, are those units that are located outside the places earmarked for industries,
that is, primarily in residential areas. Large-scale closures that began in January 2000, saw
hundreds of polluting units shut down by teams of Subdivision Magistrates. All they had was a
rough list prepared by the
Delhi Pollution Control Committee to go by. In the second leg of the second round, the
27 industries referred to began to be shut and this included a much wider section of industry and
workforce. Suddenly all hell broke loose. Desperate workers were out on the streets alongside
their employers, resisting the closures. There were roadblocks and violent protests as desperate
workers, egged on by their employers - who themselves chose to remain in the background
except in some cases - came on to the streets. For three or four days the city was in turmoil. It
also needs to be mentioned that this was the time when the government, especially the Union
Urban Development Ministry started its operations against the hawkers, vendors, and rikshaw
pullers. In late December and January, even the traditional weekly haats [markets] were not
being allowed to sit in many places in East Delhi. How much of it was due to the overenthusiasm of the implementers and how much directed from above is difficult to say. One thing
however is certain: the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi had through an order specifically made the
local police Station House Officer answerable for allowing hawkers and vendors on the streets.
Terror and insecurity took over the life of subaltern Delhi. Rumours had it that free trains were
being run for the migrants to go back to their villages. Within a week over a lakh workers are
said to have left, facing hell on the way. Two well-known British sociologists, Roger and Patricia
Jeffrey reported meeting people some months later in Bijnor, where they were doing their field
work - people who had left Delhi in November-December. Some of them were just barbers who
were told the hair they disposed of was polluting!
Life in Delhis working class areas and resettlement and unauthorized colonies was
depressing in winter. The majority of those affected were the migrant workers from Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh or Rajasthan. In the initial bursts of anger they had battled alongside the owners - often
being merely used as pawns. Unlike the earlier round of closures when at least on paper the
compensation for a job lost due to relocation was to have been the equivalent of six years wages,
this time round, there was no such provision and the majority merely received a months wage. It
was in these conditions, along with jhuggi (shanty) demolitions and no place to stay that large
numbers of workers began their trek back to the village. Even shopkeepers selling cloth and such
other items, reported their sales dropping to far below the critical level for them to continue
selling in future unless things changed and workers came back to the city. There are reasons to
believe therefore that there is some coordination in these different moves - some originating from
the judiciary and some from the government and the union ministry. The drive against polluting
industries and the drive against the poor of the city have become synonymous. It will not be out
of place to mention that around this same time, the Union Urban Development Ministry,
estimated that the possible fallout of the closures and mass displacement in this round, will
release 700 MW of power, 50 million gallons of water and a reduction of some 40 million

gallons daily of sewage. Could this be unrelated to the move to prepare Delhi to be inserted into
the grid of global cities - such that it will from now on cater to highly mobile transnational elites
and to new, more high profile modes of accumulation?
Secondly, the whole question of units in non-conforming areas is a thoroughly
misplaced one. In the first place, that to be located in a non-conforming area is not to be
polluting. The problem that the planners have with a growth that allows for these units to come
up is that it does not obey their design. They have decreed that the residential areas and the
industrial areas will be segregated. For the large mass of working people living in Delhi, either
they live near/in the industrial areas or spend three-fourths of their wages travelling. There is not
much of a choice here. For the remaining, those who do manage to put together some capital,
affording a one or two-room tenement in Delhi is itself a difficult task. They cannot afford
another establishment in another part of the city to run their little workshops. Most of these are in
any case, some kind of small businesses, often slightly upgraded artisan workshops. Many of
these units in fact, are exempted even by the Master Plan especially those that are not covered
by the Factories Act. Yet, when the police executes a decision of the judiciary one that can
therefore not be challenged, even barbers can be declared polluting or being non-conforming
areas. This is the result of the shrinkage of democratic space in the past few years, aggravated by
the so-called activist judiciary throwing its lot with the rich. It is also the consequence of the new
arrogance that the discourse of the elite has acquired.
As if the closures of industrial units was not enough, this period has seen the
simultaneous demolitions of jhuggi jhonpris all across the city. Jhuggi dwellers have been
shunted out into far-away Narela or Bhalsawa sub-cities from where to commute to their places
of work is itself an impossible task - both in terms of money and time. They have been provided
12.5 sq. ms of land each but the virtual impossibility of commuting to work daily where transport
conditions are forbiding, makes it increasingly difficult for them to stay there.