SC Empowers PCBs To Levy Restitutionary Environmental Damages
Why focus: GS3 Environment/Judiciary — tests specific statutory powers under the Air/Water Acts. High yield trap on restitutionary vs criminal damages.
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: State Pollution Control Boards were considered unauthorized to levy compensatory damages or demand bank guarantees without judicial intervention. NOW: Boards are explicitly empowered to impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages as an ex-ante preventive measure.
- ▶
BEFORE: Imposing financial liabilities for environmental harm was viewed purely as a punitive penalty requiring a criminal conviction. NOW: The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between punitive action (imposed by courts) and restitutionary damages (imposed by regulatory boards).
- ▶
BEFORE: The application of the Polluter Pays principle often awaited actual degradation and lengthy judicial processes. NOW: The principle can be applied proactively by regulators to prevent potential or imminent environmental harm.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)With reference to the Supreme Court ruling in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (2025), consider the following statements: 1. State Pollution Control Boards can impose compensatory environmental damages under the Water Act (1974) and Air Act (1981) without a criminal conviction. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that environmental boards now have the power to impose punitive criminal penalties on polluting entities. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?