The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued the Environment Protection (Manner of Holding Inquiry and Imposition of Penalty) Rules, 2024 (rules), on 4 November, 2024. The rules prescribe the procedure for filing complaints before the adjudicating authority and the way in which such complaints are to be heard.
The rules have come against the backdrop of the excoriating Supreme Court order of 23 October in MC Mehta v Union of India. The court was forthright in highlighting the deficiencies in section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (act), holding that the provision has been rendered ineffective because of the absence of proper rules. The long-running case brought by a well-known social activist concerned air pollution caused by stubble burning. The court's findings came as the Additional Solicitor General submitted a report on the action taken by the government under section 15 of the act concerning the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021.
The court found that the original section 15, which provided for the prosecution of offenders, had been replaced with the penalties for contravention set out in the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (Jan Vishwas act). While the new provisions came into force on 1 April 2024, no rules had been issued to carry the new legislation into effect. The new provision had thus been rendered completely toothless.
Before the rules came into effect, the mechanism for the hearing of complaints was solely governed by section 15 of the act. It provided for a penalty of imprisonment or a fine. The need for new rules to be issued became imperative after the Jan Vishwas act substituted new sections 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, and 15D for the earlier sections 15 to 17 of the act. The new provisions removed the previous penalty of imprisonment and prescribed only a fine of between INR10,000 (USD117) and INR1.5 million (USD17,000).
The rules set out in detail the procedure for filing and hearing complaints. Rule 3 permits environmental authorities or individuals within their jurisdictions to lodge complaints with the adjudicating officer through electronic means, by speed post or in person. Complaints are allowed to allege contraventions of sections 6 to 11 of the act. Such provisions cover defaults ranging from excessive emissions, the mishandling of hazardous substances, the failure to notify emission standards, and the obstruction of searches, seizures and sampling processes. Complaints should be submitted in the format of Form I as set out in the rules.
The adjudicating officer, on receiving the complaint, must issue a notice within 30 days following the format of Form II provided in the rules. If the officer considers the complaint to be valid, they may proceed with an inquiry, ensuring that the alleged wrongdoer is given a fair chance to present evidence and put forward their case.
The officer, in taking evidence, is not bound to follow the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. When the hearing has finished and should the officer confirm that a breach of the act has been committed, the officer must issue a reasoned penalty order dealing with the factors set out in rule 6, such as the place of operation of the project, the size of the project, the category of industry, the type of contravention and its health impact and undue gain. The rules also prescribe that the entire proceedings, from notice to the issue of resolution, must be completed within six months. Rule 7 provides for an extension of time for reasonable cause.
The rules have drawn mixed reactions. While environmental groups hope that the rules will strengthen enforcement and accountability, the businesses involved, especially MSMEs, on the other hand are worried about added financial burdens and possible overreach. Local authorities consider the rules to be vital but have emphasised the need for resources and training. The rules' effectiveness will depend on balancing strict enforcement with fairness and stakeholder collaboration. It is hoped that the introduction of the inquiry framework will see adjudicating officers appointed as quickly as possible. The penalties under section 15 should now be an effective deterrent against contravening the provisions of the act.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
