The real cost of pollution? Polluters must foot the bill, says Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the polluter pays principle, restoring to central and state pollution control boards the authority to levy compensatory and restitutive charges on entities responsible for environmental damage. In doing so, it overturned a 2012 Delhi High Court ruling that had curtailed these powers.
Crucially, the ruling draws a clear line between fines for violating norms and the damages polluters must pay - both for restoring the environment and compensating those who have suffered losses.
Sections 33A and 31A of the water and air Acts provide regulators with legal space to impose such levies. Yet, for years, lack of clarity and conflicting judgments hamstrung them, leaving the question of who pays, and how much, to be settled by courts on a case-by-case basis.
The recent apex court ruling also empowers regulators to demand bank guarantees from entities against potential environmental damage, signalling that the cost of harming the environment has gone up.
The next challenge is to ensure penalties are imposed in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner, backed by procedural certainty and free of bureaucratic delays. For this to succeed, regulators must build both institutional and technical capacity while also strengthening enforcement on the ground and coordinating across jurisdictions.
Additionally, GoI must notify rules and regulations, outline robust methods to assess environmental damage and establish a transparent system for determining the quantum of compensation. Only then can the principle that polluters must pay move beyond lofty judicial reaffirmation to effective implementation, ensuring.