WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

2. Key Amendments of the Act

• The Bill decriminalizes several violations under the Act and replaces imprisonment with penalties. Penalties for violations range between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15 lakh. Initially applicable to Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and union territories, other states may extend its applicability through resolutions.
• Certain categories of industrial plants may be exempted from obtaining consent from the SPCB, with consultation with the CPCB. The central government may issue guidelines for granting, refusing, or cancelling consent by the SPCB.
• The central government will prescribe the manner of nomination and terms and conditions of service of the SPCB chairman.
• Violations regarding polluting matters are penalized with fines between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15 lakh, removing imprisonment as a punishment.
• Offences not explicitly specified are punishable with penalties between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15 lakh. Failure to pay may result in imprisonment for up to three years or a fine twice the penalty amount.
• The central government may appoint adjudication officers to determine penalties, with appeals possible before the National Green Tribunal.
• Cognizance may be taken if a complaint is made by the CPCB, SPCB, or adjudicating officer.
• Heads of government departments are liable for penalties equal to one month of their basic salary if their departments violate any provision of the Act.
• The amendments aim to modernize enforcement measures and ensure a balance between environmental protection and ease of doing business. However, concerns may arise regarding the effectiveness of penalties in deterring violations and the role of government departments in compliance.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 stands as the pioneering legislation in independent India aimed at addressing water contamination issues. It recognized the imperative of establishing an institutional framework to tackle water pollution, leading to the establishment of the Central Pollution Control Boards (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) in September 1974. These bodies were entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring and preventing the contamination of public water resources by sewage and industrial effluents.

Key Provisions

• Regulation of Industrial Activities: The Act mandates that industrial units obtain permission from their respective State boards before establishing factories. They are also subject to checks to ensure compliance with prescribed norms regarding manufacturing processes.
• Role of CPCB and SPCB: The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is tasked with collecting, collating, and disseminating technical and statistical data related to water pollution. It guides technical standards and conducts checks. Meanwhile, State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) are responsible for enforcing compliance and filing cases against violators.
• Enforcement Measures: Violating the provisions of the Water Act can lead to severe penalties, including the shutdown of industries, monetary fines, and imprisonment for up to six years.
• Implementation and Challenges: Despite stringent provisions, there have been no reported instances of companies or individuals facing imprisonment for environmental violations under the Act. Implementation challenges and gaps in enforcement remain areas of concern.

• The need to address outdated regulations that contributed to a "trust deficit." and imprisonment provisions for minor violations, often resulting from simple infringements without causing harm to humans or the environment, led to unnecessary "harassment" of businesses and citizens such provisions were not aligned with the principles of "ease of living and ease of doing business."
• During discussions in the Lok Sabha, members of opposition parties expressed concerns that the amendments weakened laws protecting rivers and water bodies from industrial pollution. They argued that the fear of imprisonment served as an effective deterrent for industrial units reluctant to comply with stringent regulations.
• The response to the amendments reflects a divergence of opinions, with proponents emphasizing the need for regulatory reforms to facilitate business operations, while critics express apprehension about potential environmental repercussions.