GS Paper III

News Excerpt:

The Central government faces criticism over amendments to the Water Act and the alleged weakening of environmental protection.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024

• Jurisdictional Framework: Water is a State subject and the Centre cannot directly pass legislative laws influencing water management. However, the Centre can create legislation, if two or more States demand it, and this can be made applicable by States over their territories if they adopt the legislation in their Assemblies. (under Article 252 of the Constitution).
• Future applicability of the Amended Act: The amended version of the Act, will currently apply to Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan and the Union territories with the provision that other states “may pass resolutions to extend its applicability to their states.”
• Changes in Penal Provisions: 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.
• Central Authority Override: The amendments also give the Centre greater authority to override State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) in some instances. As per the original Act, the SPCB’s permission is needed for establishing any industry or treatment plant, which could discharge sewage into a water body, sewer, or land.
• Exemption for Industrial Plants: In the amendment, the Bill specifies that the Centre in consultation with the CPCB, may exempt certain categories of industrial plants from obtaining such consent. However, operating or establishing an industrial unit without SPCB consent can still land you in jail for six years along with a fine.
• Guidelines for SPCB Consent: The Bill also adds that the Centre may issue guidelines for the grant, refusal, or cancellation of consent granted by the SPCB.
• Penalties: Under the Act, establishing and operating an industry without obtaining such consent from the SPCB is punishable with imprisonment up to six years and a fine. The Bill retains this.  It also penalises tampering with monitoring devices used in determining whether any industry or treatment plant can be set up.

The rationale behind the amendments:

• As per the Union Environment Minister, the outdated rules and regulations caused a “trust deficit.”
• The imprisonment provisions for minor violations, which are simple infringements and did not lead to any injury to humans or damage to the environment, often caused “harassment” to businesses and citizens and did not align with the spirit of ease of living and doing business.

Criticism of the bill: The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024 is facing significant criticism for several issues:

• Centralization of Powers: Critics argue that the amendments propose greater central control over the selection of top officials such as appointment of chairpersons of state boards, undermining the federal structure. The bill also allows the central government to appoint adjudication officers to determine penalties under the Water Pollution Act, a power originally vested with the state governments.
• Dilution of Laws: Experts contend that the amendments weaken the original Water Act of 1974, moving away from the required revamp and instead introducing changes opposite to what was needed. 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.  
• Penal Provisions: Sweeping changes in penal provisions, such as replacing imprisonment with fines, are deemed problematic. Financial penalties for violations, especially in Sections 41 to 45 A, 47, and 48, are proposed instead of prosecution.
• Environmental Impact: Critics argue that the amendments, framed as pro-industry and for ease of doing business, may provide a license to pollute rather than acting as a deterrent, further complicating matters by being inconsistent with the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Conclusion:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024 elicits mixed sentiments. While proponents anticipate enhanced ease of living and ease of business, critics express concerns about potential environmental harm and centralization of powers. A balanced approach involves addressing industry needs while ensuring robust environmental safeguards and maintaining federal governance principles.

Prelims PYQ

Q. How is the National Green Tribunal (NGT) different from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)? (UPSC 2018)

1) The NGT has been established by an Act whereas the CPCB has been created by an executive order of the Government.

2) The NGT provides environmental justice and helps reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts whereas the CPCB promotes cleanliness of streams and wells and aims to improve the quality of air in the country.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct-?

(a)    1 only

(b)   2 only

(c)    Both 1 and 2

(d)   Neither 1 nor 2