Environment minister claims impetus to industries, improvement of environment protection while moving bill in Parliament
Think foam of pollution covers Yamuna river in New Delhi. Photo for representation: iStock The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was a failure and needed a revamp, but the latest changes introduced to the Act by the central government are exactly the opposite of what was required, according to environment experts.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024 proposing changes to the Act was moved and cleared in both houses of the Parliament within a span of 72 hours. The legislation weakens the original Act that came into force 50 years ago. Central and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) are based on the 1974 Act.
The amendment was first brought to the Rajya Sabha on February 5, 2024 by Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav. It proposed sweeping changes in the penal provisions of the Act and sought to have greater control over the selection of top officials in state boards compared to the present.
Read more: Pollution control: Amendments to Water Act is a greenwashing attempt
The amendment will initially apply to Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and the Union territories, with the provision that other states “may pass resolutions to extend its applicability to their states.”
Civil society organisations and opposition leaders opposed the latest amendment, holding it anti-environment as well as against the federal structure of the country, while several Bharatiya Janata Party members of Parliament and political parties supporting it have called it a move forward.
“Today I have appeared in this house regarding an important amendment. The bill proposes to make some significant changes in the Water Act. It will not only give impetus to the industries but also make progress towards environmental protection,” Yadav said while moving the bill in the Upper House.
“Because water is a state subject under Article 252 of the Constitution, the present proposal to amend the Water Act requires the resolution of two states, which is also attached to the bill,” the minister added.
Streamlining the appointment of chairpersons of state boards with the provision of uniform qualifications, experience and manner of appointment as proposed in the bill would bring transparency to the process, Yadav claimed. He also shared that most of the imprisonment provisions in the Act are to be replaced by fines to decriminalise the Act.
To ease the process of business (read, by most, as favouring industries), the bill specifies that the central government, in consultation with the Central Pollution Control Board, may exempt certain categories of industrial plants from obtaining consent from state pollution control boards to establish industries. This was mandatory in the earlier Act.
The original Act also had imprisonment provisions for several violations to the tune of jail terms between one and a half years and six years, along with fines. However, the latest bill proposed the removal of the imprisonment provision for most violations and replaced it with a fine in the range of Rs 10,000 to Rs 15 lakh.
“Violations relating to Sections 41 to 45 A, 47 and 48 are proposed to be dealt with by imposing financial penalties instead of prosecution in court,” said the minister. The changes are set to affect the entire chapter seven of the Act under the heading ‘penalties and procedure’.
“Under the Act, the chairman of an SPCB is nominated by the state government. The bill added that the central government will prescribe the manner of nomination and the terms and conditions of service of the chairman,” read a statement issued.
Opposition leaders have interpreted the statement as a central effort to infiltrate into a space that, so far, is held by state governments.
As per the amendment, the bill will also allow the central government to appoint adjudication officers to determine penalties under the Water Pollution Act — a provision that has further bolstered the hijack allegations against the Centre. The original Act vested this power with the state governments.
BJP MP Laxmikant Bajpai, initiating the debate, claimed that the bill is a right step towards ease of doing business. “It would free the businesses from the inspector raj and provide a better mechanism,” he said.
Jawhar Sircar, MP of All India Trinamool Congress, opposed the bill in the Upper House of Parliament and alleged that the latest bill was another effort by the Union government to dilute the environmental governance architecture of the country.
““The offender has to get fear in a state … because he is offending against nature, against humanity. This govt cannot go on exempting offenders, granting those reprieves,” said Sircar in Parliament. The MP also termed it “an anti federal law,” referring to the bill’s proposal to take away most existing powers of the state to run the operation of SPCBs.
“The government has been systematically decriminalising offences against the environment and softening penalties to please the industrial-mining lobby. It has no idea of the long-term harm that its user-friendly policies and exemptions from controls cause to the environment,” Sarkar recently told this reporter.
Most experts also criticised the latest amendments.
“There have been few success stories under the Water Act over the last 50 years and significant changes to its provisions were undoubtedly required. But the changes we have received are the opposite of what was needed,” said water expert Himanshu Thakkar. “We need decentralisation and stricter laws, but we are getting the opposite — more centralisation and diluted provisions.”
Read more: Poisoned Punjab: Study finds declining groundwater quality, southwestern Punjab most affected
Environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta also claimed the environment laws in the country, including the Water Act, have largely failed to deliver so far. “As per the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2022 reports, only 78 criminal cases were recorded under Water Act and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Most states did not register even a single case,” he said, pointing to the need for stronger penal actions.
“The latest bill is designed to dilute the Water Act, which was already ineffective,” said KJ Joy, a senior fellow of Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management from Pune. The latest amendments, proposed in the name of ease of doing business, would instead provide a licence to pollute rather than be a deterrent.
“The amendments encourage people to pay and pollute. Moreover, the inconsistency of its provisions with the Environment Protection Act, 1986 will further add to the confusion,” opined Biswajit Mukherjee, retired chief law officer of West Bengal SPCB.
Another environmental activist, on the other hand, supported the proposal to establish uniform qualifying conditions for chairpersons on state boards, pointing out that inefficient people are frequently kept in positions for long periods of time due to their political proximity to the ruling dispensation.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.