INTRODUCTION
Even a single thought about the Bhopal Gas Tragedy never fails to send a chill down the spine- this is enough to address the grave consequences of the disastrous activities of the profit-sucking corporations that the people and the environment are exposed to. It is indeed thought-provoking how the gravity of such crimes go unnoticed even if they take the lives of hundreds of people, while an act of murder is seen with great contempt. Are these crimes less than murder? Indeed not. Environmental crimes are a simultaneous murder of not one but many people, and of the environment. The only method to curb such crimes is through a strong legal framework which currently is not up to the mark be it the legal provisions or the judicial pronouncements. The article, therefore, seeks to address and analyse the issues that the liberal perception of this crime raises.
The primary focus has been on analysing the liability of corporations in environmental crimes. To that effect, this article has been divided into four major sections. The first section of the article discusses and describes the concept associated with Environmental Crime. The second section of the article presents a detailed legal analysis of the criminalisation of corporate environmental crimes. The third section of the article highlights the lacunae concerning the incapacity of three legislations, i.e., the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Environment (Protection) Act to deal with environmental crimes. The fourth and the final major section of the article based on some of the case laws, analyses the paradigm shift in the judicial trend that the concept of Environmental Crimes in India has gone through.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
The term ‘Environmental Crimes’ does not have a universally accepted definition, and is in most instances defined based on the convenience to interpret. The genesis of such an idea can be owed to the deleterious acts/omissions that are responsible for the violation of the environmental law.1 Y. Situ and D. Emmons2 cumulatively put forth the definition as “an environmental crime is an unauthorised act or omission that violates the law and is therefore subject to criminal prosecution and criminal sanction”. According to the United Nations Crime and Justice Research Institute, “environmental crimes encompass a broad list of illicit activities, including illegal trade in wildlife; smuggling of ozone-depleting substances; illicit trade of hazardous waste; illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing; and illegal logging and trade in timber”.3 Legally speaking, for an act or omission to be categorised as an ‘Environmental Crime’ it should- a) cause direct/indirect damage to the environment, and b) be prohibited by the law.4 These interpretative definitions, though objective, do not suffice in toto. On analysing the proposed array of definitions available, a few shortcomings could be highlighted- firstly, the lack of a universally accepted definition creates uncertainties regarding a common ground for accepting an act as an environmental crime; secondly, the lack of a well-defined area of activities the definition would encompass; thirdly, the jurisdictional and geographical limitations- what is a crime in one nation may not be a crime in the other.
It is per se called a ‘crime’, for it endangers people’s health and causes irreparable damage to the environment. Such long-lasting and grievous harm is bound to have grave consequences not only on the present generation but also on the future generation, undermining the idea of Sustainable Development. It is the disastrous and far-reaching consequential nature of the act or omission that calls for criminal sanctions being associated with an environmental offence. There is no reason acceptable enough that would outweigh the costs over benefits of such heinous acts. As the telos is merely to serve either of the two- a) Corporations, or b) Individuals. These acts are unapologetically used as a means to serve the end of profit-making or financial gain. Corporations, under the veil of capital generation and lucrative business, blatantly ignore environmental and public concerns. Therefore, the present research seeks to deal with the Corporate Criminal Liability that arises out of the Corporate Environmental Crimes committed by industries and corporations.
THE CRIMINALISATION OF CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES: AN ANALYSIS
There are three kinds of stances that are put forward concerning the corporate liability for environmental crimes.5 First, the traditional view argues that since a corporation does not have a mind of its own, so the criminal act would lack the requisite mens rea, therefore, the corporate bodies cannot be charged criminally. The supporters of this view majorly argue that a corporation though a separate legal personality has no physical existence, therefore, imposing criminal liability would render the punishment of imprisonment meaningless. Some European countries like Germany, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Sweden, etc., support the traditional view. Second, are the ones who support imposing criminal liability on corporations for the commission of environmental crimes. In this scenario, the corporation and the persons responsible for running the corporation would be held liable personally. Countries like the USA, Australia, Denmark, France, Finland, Netherland, Belgium, United Kingdom, etc., favour this view. Moreover, the International Environment Law contemplates a mandatory obligation on all parties to the convention to incorporate within their domestic law- provisions imposing criminal sanctions on the erring corporations.6 Third, this view is mediatory, which suggests that criminal liability ought to be adopted as a last resort. It is only supposed to be chosen in the cases where the other remedies fail to deter the actions of the offender.
This article seeks to support the second stance- the one of making corporations criminally liable for environmental crimes. To refute the argument put forward by the traditional view- that seeks to not make corporations liable for their criminal activities associated with the environment, the following premises are vital. Corporations are non-physical entities but have a distinct legal persona. Moreover, corporations are run by individuals like the directors, who are said to be the ‘mind of a company’. Oftentimes, the Courts have treated such officers as the mind, body and soul of the corporate body.7 Though legally, it may appear to be a non-physical entity, however, in reality, it is an association of persons. A corporation cannot be run without individuals associated with it. Therefore, it is wrong to hold that a corporation lacks mind and that it cannot have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. Furthermore, a widely accepted rule of corporate law is the lifting of the corporate veil used to make such offenders personally liable who seek to commit the offence under the guise of the corporation. This rule becomes cardinal while seeking to make the officials of a corporation liable for environmental crimes. The mediatory view of adopting criminal liability as a last resort is certainly not acceptable provided the egregious nature of these crimes and the incapacity of penalty to alone suffice for punishments in such grave cases.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 19848 has come to be known as one of the ‘World’s Worst Industrial Disasters’. The Bhopal plant of Union Carbide Corporation negligently released Methyl Isocyanate and Hydrogen Cyanide gas into the atmosphere. This incident killed at least 3,800 people immediately. The toll of death has risen to an approximate number of 25,000 in the three subsequent decades. This disastrous incident not only took away the lives of many people but also gravely affected the survivors who were present inside the corporation and who resided in its vicinity. Some half a million survivors suffered respiratory problems, eye irritation or blindness, and other maladies resulting from exposure to the toxic gas. Such industrial disasters have an inherently detrimental impact on the people and the environment which continues to haunt in the years to come. In the early 21st century, 400 tons of industrial waste was said to be present on the site of the disaster. This industrial waste has contaminated the soil and the groundwater to an extent that the consumption has led to chronic health problems and birth defects among the inhabitants of the area. This incident has been a major contributor to all three kinds of pollution- air, soil and water.
So, the whole point around emphasising the need for the criminalisation of corporate environmental crimes, a sub-type of white-collar crimes, is because of its inherently vast nature and capacity to cause harm. Industries significantly contribute to polluting the environment in diverse ways- intentional littering, improper disposal of nuclear and hazardous waste, releasing toxic substances into air and water bodies. Most of these above-stated activities are well-known to the officials and are not mere cases of negligence. Such activities not only affect the environment but also affect countless people, rendering them victims of a plethora of respiratory illnesses and other problems. The argument of making the corporations criminally liable for environmental offences gains efficacy in light of the following reasons.9 Criminal sanctions mostly deter violations in ways that are efficient to the other methods of punishment. “Deterrence works best on people who have not had contact with criminal justice and for whom prosecution or even investigation will have severe personal consequences.”10 Corporate officials are known to be a “social group that is exquisitely sensitive to status deprivation and censure”.11 The accusation of a crime would be degrading to their corporate image since the publicity value means a great deal to their job. Criminal sanctions can have certain systematic effects as well, like disqualification of a corporate official may change his attitude towards the environment thereby, reducing the chances of prospective violations by him. Furthermore, on moral grounds, it could be argued that the affluent persons who used to escape liability by affording even heavy penalties would become more responsible towards the environment in the absence of an alternative. Last but not least, oftentimes, the gravity of environmental crimes is so high that such behaviour must only be addressed with the criminal law.
The Statutory Provisions Dealing with Environmental Crimes- An Analysis
The major lacuna that the Indian environmental law suffers from is the lack of the consideration that environmental crimes are serious and may take the shape of even an organised crime12. Such crimes are even lowly ranked in the law enforcement priority list. The Law Commission of India has recurrently recommended that the liberal punishments concerning environmental crimes must be amended to include stricter punishments so that the responsible corporations do not go scot-free.13 There is a wide array of provisions and legislations which have been enacted by the Indian government with respect to environmental protection. Some of the important ones are discussed hereunder:
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with “offences affecting the public safety, health, convenience, decency and morals”.
Section 268 provides for the offence of public nuisance- A person is held liable for the offence of public nuisance if he engages himself in any act/omission which causes- a) common injury, b) danger/annoyance to the public/people in general who live or occupy property in the vicinity, c) necessarily causing injury/obstruction/danger/annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. Further, Section 290 provides for the punishment of public nuisance with a maximum penalty of two hundred rupees. It is indeed dispiriting to know that the perpetrators of an egregious environmental offence like public nuisance can go scot-free by paying a mere penalty of a maximum of two hundred rupees or even less than that. This penalty can never succeed in deterring the violations towards the environment by the big corporations.
Fouling of the water of a public spring or reservoir is contemplated to be an environmental crime under section 277 of the IPC. Under this section, to voluntarily corrupt or foul the water of any public spring or reservoir is an offence and the person held liable would be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of three months, or with a maximum fine of five hundred rupees, or with both. Moreover, the making of atmosphere noxious to health is punishable under the IPC under section 278. Under this section, to voluntarily vitiate the atmosphere in any place making it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way is a punishable offence. The offender is bound to be punished with a maximum fine of five hundred rupees.
The above-stated two provisions are directly related to environmental protection as they seek to prevent water and air pollution through a penal strategy. However, firstly, the problem with all these environmental offences is that the nature of punishment is not effective to cause a deterrent effect among the corporations. They are too lenient for offences as big as the ones where, for example, the industries pollute the only source of drinking water and the consumption of which causes mass public suffering.14 Secondly, the effective application of these provisions in achieving the objective of environmental protection is doubtful because the technicalities of Indian criminal law require a complete satisfaction of the ingredients of the offence as stipulated in the penal provisions making the process of delivery of the criminal justice system tedious.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the “maintenance of public order and tranquillity”. Part B and Part C enumerates provisions relating to Public Nuisance and urgent cases of nuisance and apprehended danger respectively- both relevant to be considered for environmental protection.
Section 133 (Part B) provides for the conditional order for the removal of the nuisance. The District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Executive Magistrate is empowered to pass a conditional order for the removal of the nuisance on a report by the police officer or based on any other information after considering the evidence (if any). This has been proved to be an effective remedy to resort to abating public nuisance associated with environmental harm.
Section 144 (Part C) provides for urgent powers of the District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Executive Magistrate to issue an order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger in situations where a speedy remedy is desirable. This section particularly confers wide powers on the Magistrate to deal with urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted in an aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and in accordance with the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972.15 The Act seeks to provide for protection and improvement of the environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property.
Chapter III of the Act provides for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution. The following provisions are relevant to the corporations for environmental protection. Under Section 7 of the Act, the persons carrying on industry operations, etc., are not supposed to emit or permit to be discharged/emitted any environmental pollutants above the prescribed standards. Further, Section 8 provides that a person handling hazardous substances must comply with the procedural safeguards.
The penal provision of the enactment has been incorporated under Section 15 of the Act. This section, in case of contravention of the provisions and rules, orders and directions of the Act, provides for imprisonment of a maximum period of five years and a maximum fine of one lakh rupees. If the contravention is continuing then an additional fine of a maximum of five thousand rupees can be imposed every day. Furthermore, if the contravention exceeds beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the punishment can be extended to a maximum period of seven years.
The Act under section 16 provides a specific provision for environmental offences committed by companies. This section very appropriately makes all such persons liable for the offence who were directly in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company. Such persons would be held liable and be punished accordingly. However, a person can escape from liability under section 16 if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
THE JUDICIAL TREND
1984- Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India16 (The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case): The very fact that in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (the world’s worst industrial disaster) the Union Carbide Corporation was not held criminally liable suggests that the development of criminal jurisprudence of environment did not start off on the right foot. The UCC was absolutely exempted from the criminal liability and the Court held that the pending criminal prosecution was a separate and distinct proceeding unconnected with the suit from an interlocutory order. Since the Court did not have the power to withdraw the criminal proceedings, it urged to quash the order. “The order of February 15th, 1989 provided: All such criminal proceedings including contempt proceedings stand quashed and accused deemed to be acquitted.”17
1987- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India18 (The Oleum Gas Leak Case): This case is based on yet another instance of the leakage of gas that happened soon after the disastrous Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In one of the units of the Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industries, a major leakage of oleum gas was reported which caused considerable damage to the workers and the people residing in the vicinity of the factory. It was alleged that an advocate also died due to the gas leak. The Court very appropriately sought to hold the chairman and Managing Director and other officers along with the operator and head of the concerned plant personally responsible for this mishap. Such officers have often been treated as the mind, soul, and body of the corporation.19
However, the outcome of this case was particularly disappointing as the Court later decided to change the First Order. Subsequently, the Court ordered that the officials could be exempted from being held responsible if they prove that the escape of the gas was due to an Act of God or vis major or sabotage. On a positive note, the case particularly holds landmark importance in the development of criminal law in environmental jurisprudence and has also led to the incorporation of the tortuous doctrine of absolute liability in India.
1992- Dwarka Cement Works v. the State of Gujarat20: The absence of a strict legal framework provides the chance to the corporations to frame excuses to get rid of their responsibility in environmental offences. This is one such case where the corporation framed a lame excuse to escape liability.
Please read concluding on link4din.com/guardians-numeric-wisdom
The Chairman, Director and the General Manager who were involved in the environmental crime contended that there was nothing in the complaint that concerned them with regards to the management of the industry, and, therefore, they could not be personally held liable for the harm caused. However, the Court did not allow their plea on account of their tricks to escape liability.
2003- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India21: This case marked the success of the environmental illuminary Mr M.C. Mehta in the unveiling of criminal sanctions on the respondent of the case. The Supreme Court ordered the respondent to close the hot mix plant unit. However, he alleged that the High Court had approved of his activities. Moreover, when the contempt notice was served on the respondent, he again chose to allege but this time it was the Apex Court, with contumacious statements. Therefore, the SC given the highly contemptuous statements decided ‘to give a strong signal to the respondent so that like-minded people do not repeat the same and such recurrence is thwarted in future’ who was responsible for causing the risk of deleterious effects of air pollution on the health of the society.22 Concerning the criminal sanction- he was punished with one week of simple imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees. One week of simple imprisonment seems too liberal for a criminal sanction, however, this case attempted to apply criminal sanction in environmental jurisprudence in a full-fledged manner.
Suggestions and Conclusion
The need of the hour is a shift in the environmental jurisprudence from tortious liability to criminal sanctions for crimes that affect the health and lives of people en masse and irreparably degrade the environment. The Courts must not allow the criminals to go scot-free.
It is high time for the environmental provisions to be amended to- a) include organised environmental crimes as separate and specific offences and b) raise the strictness of the currently liberal penalties.
The wide array of legislation on the environment should be consolidated to form a separate and specific piece of legislation that would precisely provide for environmental offences and their stipulated penalties.
The lame excuses of the corporations continue to take advantage of the weak legal framework and degrade the environment. Therefore, it is highly recommended to allow the full operation of absolute liability in environmental offences.
Considering the heinous, grave and egregious nature of environmental crimes, significant efforts should be made to formulate a definition and classify the acts that would result in environmental crime. The lack of a universally accepted definition, the liberal penalties, the weak legal framework and the absence of judicial activism has exacerbated the consequences of such a crime altogether. All of these lacunae should be given wide importance and be looked at with immense concern. Otherwise, profit-sucking corporations would continue to work in neglect to deteriorate and damage the environment. After all, it is not some temporary damage to the environment but serious, irreversible deterioration that affects not only the present generation but also the generations to come.
(Endnotes)
1 C.M. Jariwala, Corporate Environmental Criminal Liability in India: Reality or Myth, 3-5 RMLNLUJ 98 (2011-2013).
2 Y. Situ, D. Emmons, Environmental Crime: The Criminal Justice System’s Role in Protecting the Environment 3 Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000).
3 UNITED NATIONS INTERREGIONAL CRIME AND JUSTICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, http://www.unicri.it/topics/environmental (last visited June 29, 8:23 PM).
4 Stuart Bell, Donald McGillivray, Environmental Law 254 Oxford University Press (2008).
5 C.M. Jariwala, Corporate Environmental Criminal Liability in India: Reality or Myth, 3-5 RMLNLUJ 98 (2011-2013).
6 The Resolutions of the XVth International Congress on Penal Law, (Rio) Res. 12, 14 and 20, 1994.
7 Moore v. Brester, (1944) 2 All ER 515; Tesco Supermarket Ltd. v. Nattrass, 1972 AC 153.
8 BRITANNICA, https://www.britannica.com/event/Bhopal-disaster (last visited June 29, 8:23 PM).
9 Joseph F. Dimento, Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law, 525 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 134-146 (2013).
10 Greider, Fines Aren’t Enough: Send Corporate Polluters to Jail, Rolling Stone 46 (1984).
11 Susan Hedman, Expressive Functions of Criminal Sanctions in Environmental Law, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 889-99 (1991).
12 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652; Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
13 The Report of the Law Commission of India (Forty-first) 1969; The Report of the Law Commission of India (Forty-seventh) 1972.
14 Vellore Welfare Citizen Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
15 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, (1986) India.
16 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248, 281.
17 Id.
18 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965.
19 Moore v. Brester, (1944) 2 All ER 515; Tesco Supermarket Ltd. v. Nattrass, 1972 AC 153.
20 Dwarka Cement Works v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 1 Guj L Her 9.
21 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 376.
22 C.M. Jariwala, Corporate Environmental Criminal Liability in India: Reality or Myth, 3-5 RMLNLUJ (2011-2013) 98.