Red signals for green laws

Relaxing penalties in environment laws is ill-advised

Since it came to power in 2014, the National Democratic Alliance government has sought to establish itself as a business-friendly regime. One of the key means by which it has tried to fulfil this agenda is loosening environment protection laws. In this context, the latest set of proposals from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) dilutes the penal provisions in three laws governing environmental protection, and air and water pollution. According to the MoEFCC, the idea is to decriminalise the provisions to remove fear of imprisonment for “simple” violations. The ministry said it was acting on suggestions it had received. The government plans to scrap the provision for imprisonment for the first default (originally up to five years) but raise the penalty from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. For a repeat offence the penalty has become more interpretational, as being equivalent to the damage caused. Imprisonment would follow if the defaulter failed to pay both the original and additional penalty. But here too, the amendments propose that aggrieved parties can appeal to the National Green Tribunal against the adjudicating officer’s order.

The government had also created an environment protection fund where the penalty imposed by adjudicating officers under the amended rules will be deposited. The fund will be used for the benefit of affected parties. In principle, decriminalising white-collar crimes is good practice, but given India’s evolving ecological challenges — the country is among the world’s top climate-induced disaster-hit countries — there is a robust argument to keep environmental protection laws as strict as possible. Given that business lobbying power remains as durable as ever, allowances for appeals and waivers can reliably be expected to coagulate into standard practice. The underlying principle for a country that publicly presents itself as a beacon of climate justice should be that environment protection is non-negotiable. The government has, however, not consistently followed this principle.

It is important that the balance between growth and environment sustainability is maintained at all times. In 2014, for instance, the government allowed factories to be set up in eight critically polluted belts. Later, mid-sized polluting industries were allowed to operate within 5 km of eco-sensitive areas instead of 10 km, effluent norms were eased for thermal power plants, and ecologically sensitive areas denotified and coastal regulation zones loosened. Most concerning have been the proposed amendments to the Forest Act to enable safaris, zoos, mining and other non-forest use on forest land.

It is noteworthy that the government’s environmental rules principally benefit large and medium industries; it has not displayed similar latitude to the scores of small and tiny industries that stand to go out of business on account of the ban, albeit much-needed, on a range of single-use plastic products. It is also significant that the government has sought to institutionally strengthen its role in environmental decision-making bodies such as reducing the number of independent members on the National Board for Wildlife from 15 to three. An attempt to play a bigger role in the appointment of the chairman of the National Green Tribunal was stayed by the Supreme Court. Taken together, green signals for industry are flashing red for India’s environment.