Environmental regulators are constitutionally obligated to prevent and mitigate environmental harm. In a landmark judgement in Indian environmental jurisprudence, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra expanded upon the scope of the power of Pollution Control Boards at the State and UT level.
The matter in .P.C.C vs Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.Etc decided on 4 August 2025 was an appeal arising from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) alleging violations of Section 25 of the Water Act and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air Act by residential and commercial entities. The judgement harmonizes the Polluter Pays principle which was established in the Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India case, by asserting that remedial directions do not amount to punitive actions.
Regulators must be inspired from the obligation in Part IV A and Article 48 A. The State’s ‘endeavour to protect and improve the environment’ is a partial goal, if it does not ensure a duty to restore damages The Court recognized that amid climate change, the duty to protect water and air have attained the most significance of all obligations in Article 51A. Institutional transparency and accountability need to guide interpretation of Section 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act.
The Apex Court made a distinction in action for environmental damages for restitution or remediation and imposition of penalties or fines levied as a punitive action. By referring to the precedence in M.C. Mehta, the Court upheld that Indian law maintains a difference between actions for compensatory damages that are rooted in remedial action, and statutorily mandated punitive actions.
The Court reiterated that Sections 33A and 31A empower regulators to issue directions including ex-ante remedial measures like compensation or bank guarantees. These powers are similar in nature to Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act and must be read in light of the Polluter Pays principle. Boards may adopt any appropriate measure against a polluting entity to minimize harm. This includes punitive proceedings under Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts respectively. In doing so, they must exercise transparency, procedural fairness and have an intent to restore and remediate upon environmental loss.
