How ED inaction has encouraged violation of environmental laws: Read NGT verdict

The National Green Tribunal on Wednesday said that the inaction of Enforcement Directorate (ED) against violations of environmental statutes included in Schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has encouraged polluters to continue violation with impunity. [Sanjay Kulshresthra and Anr. v Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.].A Coram of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, judicial member Justice Sudhir Agarwal and expert member Dr A Senthil Vel observed that ED has been taking action under PMLA in a narrow sphere without noting that the scope of the Act was widened after the amendment Act of 2012."It has forgot to take note of the fact that scope of PMLA 2002 has been enhanced or widened, a lot, at least after amendment Act of 2012 w.e.f. 15.02.2013. More than eleven years have passed but not a single action has been taken by Enforcement Directorate, against violators committing offences under environmental Statutes which have been included in the Schedule, part A of PMLA 2002," the NGT stated..It further stated that offences under environmental statutes are non-cognizable but not under PMLA."The offences under Environmental Acts, as such are non-cognizable but under PMLA 2002, offences are cognizable. Since Competent Authority has never resorted to proceed against violators of environmental Statutes despite committing offences thereunder, which are included in PMLA 2002, this inaction has encouraged polluters to continue violation with impunity," it said..It is incumbent upon the competent authorities regulating and enforcing PMLA 2002 to take action against such violators, the NGT added..The NGT made the observation in a judgment in which it levied environmental compensation on Agra Nagar Nigam and Mathura-Vrindavan Nagar Nigam for discharge of sewage in river Yamuna.It observed that when environmental norms were not followed, it resulted in commissioning of a scheduled offence and that the revenue earned by committing such crime was 'proceeds of crime' as defined in PMLA. "By showing it in accounts amounts to projecting or claiming it as untainted property," the NGT opined..The judgment was passed on two separate applications filed by two individuals seeking remedial action against sewage discharge in Yamuna at Mathura-Vrindavan and Agra in Uttar Pradesh (UP)..At Agra, the Tribunal found that there was a gap of about 183.79 MLD (megaliters per day) of sewage which was not being treated by Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) and was directly being discharged in River Yamuna. At Mathura and Vrindavan, this gap was found to be of about 4 MLD.It stated that despite repeated opportunities afforded to authorities at both places to take steps for preventing pollution of River Yamuna, all efforts had failed.Accordingly, NGT held that there was a clear violation of Water Act as well as River Ganga Order, 2016 given that Yamuna is a tributary of Ganga. Therefore, it determined that it was entitled to ascertain environmental compensation on the principle of ‘polluter pays’ and also to issue directions for further preventive, punitive and remedial action in accordance with law. .The NGT used the following formula to compute environmental compensation:Environmental Compensation = Quantity of polluting material discharged in River Yamuna directly or indirectly × number of days of such discharge/violation × 1 paisa.This formula helped reach the figures of about ₹58.4 crores and about ₹7.2 crores for Agra and Mathura-Vrindavan respectively..The NGT directed that amount of environmental compensation will be used for remediation, rejuvenation and restoration of environment in the Agra, Mathura and Vrindavan region on the basis of a rejuvenation plan to be prepared jointly by a Joint Committee comprising of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and concerned District Magistrates..It also directed UPPCB to take punitive action for offences under Water Act, River Ganga Order 2016 and the Environment Protection Act. .The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by advocates Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Chetan Jadon and Hardik Saxena.CPCB was represented by advocates Atif Suhrawardy, Yogya Sharma and Pankaj Kumar.Agra Nagar Nigam was represented by advocate Priyanka Swami.UPPCB was represented by advocates Arvind Kumar, Ankit Kumar Vats and Daleep Dhyani..[Read Judgment]