LawSchools99 logoLawSchools99
Mumbai University · First Year LLB · Semester 2
Explain in detail the salient features of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Explain in detail the salient features of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Q4Long AnswersAttempt any THREE of the following five sub-questions — 13 marks each (Total: 39 marks)2023
Q4 (4)13 MarksExplain in detail the salient features of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Introduction

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is India's first comprehensive legislation specifically targeting water pollution. Enacted in response to rapid industrial growth and deteriorating water quality, the Act adopts a command-and-control approach — laying down standards for effluent discharge and enforcing penalties for non-compliance. It was amended in 1988 to make it more comprehensive. The Act provides for the establishment of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) as the primary regulatory agencies.

Background and Objective

Primary objectives of the Act include: (i) prevention and control of water pollution; (ii) maintenance or restoration of the wholesomeness of water; (iii) establishment of Central and State Boards as custodians for effecting this Act. Sources of water pollution addressed include: domestic waste (75% of India's water pollution), industrial effluents, insecticides/pesticides, thermal pollution, and radiation waste.

Salient Features

1. Establishment of CPCB and SPCBs (Sections 3 & 4):

The Act creates a two-tier regulatory structure: the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) at the national level and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) in each state. Both boards are composed of officials from government, industry, research, and public sectors (maximum 17 members each, including a full-time Chairman and Member Secretary). A Joint Board (Section 13) can be constituted for two or more states sharing a river basin.

2. Functions of the Boards (Sections 16 & 17):

  • Promote cleanliness of streams and wells; prevent and control water pollution.
  • Set national/state standards for water quality and discharge of trade effluents.
  • Conduct research; collect, collate, and disseminate pollution data.
  • Grant or refuse consent to industries for discharge of effluents.
  • Issue directions for closure, prohibition, or regulation of polluting industries.

3. Prohibition on Discharge of Pollutants (Section 24):

No person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter any stream or well. This is the Act's central prohibition. Industries must not discharge trade effluents into streams without consent of the SPCB.

4. Consent Mechanism (Sections 25 & 26):

No person shall establish any new sewage/trade effluent outlet into a stream without the prior consent of the SPCB. The SPCB grants consent subject to conditions on quality and quantity of discharge. Consent can be granted, refused, or granted with conditions and is subject to review.

5. Power of Entry and Inspection (Section 23):

Authorised persons of the SPCB/CPCB can enter any premises to inspect equipment, examine records, take samples, and conduct compliance checks — ensuring effective enforcement.

6. Sample Collection and Analysis (Sections 21 & 22):

Effluent samples are collected in the presence of the occupier, divided into three parts (one for laboratory, one for occupier, one retained for court), sealed and labelled. Analysis by recognised laboratories determines whether the effluent meets prescribed standards.

7. Power to Issue Directions (Section 33A):

The SPCB can issue written directions for closure, prohibition, regulation, or stoppage of electricity/water supply to any polluting industry. Such directions are immediately enforceable.

8. Appeals (Section 28):

Any person aggrieved by an order of the SPCB can appeal to the Appellate Authority within 30 days. The Appellate Authority is usually a senior officer designated by the State Government.

9. Penalties (Sections 42–45):

OffencePenalty
Violating Section 24 (discharge standards)Imprisonment up to 3 months and/or fine up to Rs. 10,000
Second/subsequent convictionImprisonment 2–7 years and fine (enhanced)
Contravention of other provisions (Section 45A)Imprisonment up to 6 months and/or fine up to Rs. 10,000; continuing offence Rs. 5,000/day
Offence by company (Section 47)Every person in charge is deemed guilty, unless due diligence defence established

10. Corporate Liability (Section 47):

If an offence is committed by a company, every person in charge of and responsible for the business is deemed guilty. The defence of lack of knowledge and due diligence may be available to individuals (not the company itself).

11. Bar of Jurisdiction (Section 58):

No civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of any matter that the Appellate Authority is empowered to determine, and no injunction can be granted by a civil court against actions taken under the Act.

12. Water Cess Act, 1977 — Financial Support:

The Water Cess Act augments the financial resources of SPCBs by levying a cess on industries and local authorities. A 25% rebate is available to those installing sewage/effluent treatment plants — incentivising compliance.

Significance

The Water Act, 1974 established India's foundational water pollution control framework. It created independent regulatory boards with both advisory and enforcement functions, introduced the consent-based approach to industrial water use, and provided a graduated penalty system. Its limitations (low penalties, inadequate monitoring infrastructure) have been partially addressed by the NGT Act, 2010, which provides a faster and more effective forum for water pollution disputes.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court directed the closure of tanneries discharging trade effluents into the Ganga at Kanpur — citing violations of Section 24 of the Water Act — affirming the Board's power to enforce mandatory compliance with discharge standards.
AP SPCB v. M.V. Nayudu (2001): The Supreme Court upheld the SPCB's power to issue mandatory directions under Section 33A for closure of polluting industries, affirming that the Board's enforcement powers are wide and must be exercised proactively.