CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR RIVER POLLUTION IN INDIA: FROM GANGA TO YAMUNA

THE REDWOOD JOURNAL Website: www.the redwood journal.com  VOLUME:-1 ISSUE NO:- 1 , MAY 12, 2026 ISSN (ONLINE):-  Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com  Authored By :- Dr. Riya Banerjee   CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR RIVER POLLUTION IN INDIA: FROM GANGA TO YAMUNA Manuscript_RiyaBanerjee_RiverPollution (2) – Riya. Banerjee.docx   Abstract River pollution in India, especially in the Ganga and Yamuna, continues to pose a serious environmental and public health challenge despite decades of regulation. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 criminalise unlawful discharge of pollutants and impose liability on industrial and municipal bodies. Judicial oversight through public interest litigation and the National Green Tribunal has strengthened environmental governance and directed corrective action. However, criminal enforcement remains weak due to procedural delays, evidentiary difficulties, fragmented corporate liability, and institutional limitations of Pollution Control Boards. This chapter analyses the doctrinal basis of criminal liability for river pollution, examines systemic gaps that allow offenders to avoid punishment, and considers comparative approaches to environmental crime. It contends that effective deterrence requires clearer offences, stronger accountability, specialised prosecution, and closer coordination between criminal, civil, and regulatory frameworks. Keywords: River pollution, Ganga, Yamuna, criminal liability, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974   Page No- 1 1. Introduction India’s major river systems occupy a central place in the country’s ecological stability, economic development, and constitutional imagination. The Ganga and the Yamuna are not merely watercourses; they sustain agriculture, provide drinking water to densely populated regions, support fisheries, and hold deep cultural and religious significance. Yet both rivers continue to experience high levels of contamination arising from industrial discharge, untreated municipal sewage, agricultural runoff, and solid waste dumping. Official assessments have repeatedly indicated that untreated sewage constitutes a dominant share of river pollution load in major urban stretches, particularly along the Yamuna in Delhi and downstream segments of the Ganga basin. Industrial effluents, especially from sectors such as tanneries, textiles, pulp and paper, chemicals, and sugar mills, contribute additional toxic burden. Despite decades of regulatory intervention and judicial supervision, measurable improvements remain uneven and fragile. India’s statutory response to water pollution began with the enactment of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. The statute established Central and State Pollution Control Boards and introduced a consent mechanism regulating discharge of effluents into water bodies. It criminalised violations, prescribing imprisonment and fines for non-compliance. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 subsequently strengthened central regulatory authority and enabled the prescription of standards for discharge and environmental quality. The creation of the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 introduced a specialised forum for environmental adjudication and compensation. Constitutional jurisprudence has further expanded environmental protection. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the right to a wholesome environment. Through public interest litigation, the Court has issued directions relating to industrial relocation, effluent treatment, and river cleaning measures, particularly in cases concerning the Ganga and Yamuna. These developments demonstrate a robust normative commitment to environmental protection. However, the persistence of severe river pollution raises a deeper question: why has criminal liability not functioned as an effective deterrent? While statutory provisions provide for imprisonment and fines, actual convictions remain limited and enforcement often centres on compliance directives rather than penal consequences. Municipal bodies responsible for large-scale sewage discharge are rarely subjected to sustained criminal prosecution. Corporate actors frequently resolve violations through administrative directions or financial penalties rather than custodial sanctions.   Page No- 2 This chapter proceeds on the premise that environmental governance cannot rely exclusively on regulatory compliance mechanisms. Where pollution endangers public health, ecological systems, and constitutional rights, criminal law carries expressive and deterrent value. It signals societal condemnation and affirms the seriousness of environmental harm. The gap between statutory promise and enforcement reality therefore demands doctrinal and institutional scrutiny. The discussion that follows analyses the structure of criminal liability under the Water Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, the doctrinal complexities of corporate and municipal accountability, procedural and evidentiary hurdles, and the role of judicial intervention. It concludes by evaluating reform pathways capable of transforming environmental criminal law from symbolic enforcement into meaningful accountability. 2. Statutory Framework of Criminal Liability India’s criminal law response to river pollution is primarily rooted in two central statutes: the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Together, they establish regulatory standards, enforcement mechanisms, and penal consequences for non-compliance. A doctrinal understanding of criminal liability under these statutes is essential to evaluate why enforcement outcomes remain limited. 2.1 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 The Water Act was enacted to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water. It created the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), entrusting them with monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement functions. A central regulatory mechanism under the Act is the requirement of prior consent. Sections 25 and 26 mandate that no person shall establish or operate any industry, operation, or process likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream, well, sewer, or on land without the previous consent of the State Board. Operation without consent, or violation of consent conditions, constitutes an offence. Section 24 prohibits knowingly causing or permitting any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter into any stream or well. This provision forms the substantive foundation for criminal prosecution relating to discharge into rivers such as the Ganga and Yamuna. The penal framework is set out in sections 41 to 45A. Contravention of section 24 or sections 25 and 26 is punishable with imprisonment and fine. For continuing offences, additional daily fines may be imposed. Enhanced punishment is prescribed for repeat violations. The statute therefore clearly contemplates custodial sentences and not merely monetary penalties.   Page No- 3 However, prosecution under the Water Act is subject to procedural conditions. Section 49 restricts cognisance of offences to complaints made by the Board or an authorised officer, or by a