Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules, orders and directions

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati

   Supreme Court of India 01 Apr 2020 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2020) 17 SCC 157

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Ex post facto environmental clearances are illegal. Industry that operated without prior EC is liable on polluter-pays principles under Environment (Protection) Act s.3 measures and s.15 penalties, read with Article 21. Use Judgement order-32.pdf (2020-04-01), not same-date order-33 ROP.

   On this section: Operating without prior EC attracts s.15 penalties / polluter-pays consequences.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Vanashakti vs Union Of India

   Supreme Court of India 29 Jul 2026 Binding (Supreme Court) 2026 INSC 761

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The prior environmental clearance regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and gives expression to the precautionary principle. While breach of this regime attracts civil penalties under Section 15 of the 1986 Act and by necessary implication leads to restoration of status quo ante including closure, demolition, remediation and recovery of costs, the Central Government possesses power under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to issue a narrowly tailored, time-bound, delegated legislation carving an exception to the prior EC requirement in appropriate cases where a supervening public interest justifies controlled continuance subject to stringent appraisal, damage assessment, remediation, compensatory liability and future compliance. Such an exception must satisfy the constitutional tests of reasonable classification under Article 14 and proportionality under Article 21. However, an administrative instruction cannot supplant the 2006 Notification or create a perpetual amnesty regime applicable to all permissible projects without intelligible differentia bearing rational nexus to supervening public interest. The 2017 Notification is valid as such a narrowly tailored exception, but the 2021 Office Memorandum is invalid as it fails the proportionality test by being unlimited in time and class.

   On this section: Prescribes penalties for contravention of Act provisions; amended by Jan Vishwas Act 2023 to replace criminal prosecution with civil penalties

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Goa Foundation vs M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.

   Supreme Court of India 07 Feb 2018 Binding Supreme Court Precedent with Significant Landmark Impact Reportable (2018) 2 SCC 1 (anticipated citation for reported version)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a Supreme Court direction mandates the grant of 'fresh mining leases' in the context of expired leases and illegal mining, it means the State must grant new mining leases (not second renewals) in accordance with law. The grant of fresh mining leases is a policy decision within State's executive power, but such policy decisions must comply with constitutional provisions (Articles 14 and 39(b)), applicable statutes (MMDR Act, Environmental Acts), and must be based on relevant material and holistic application of statutory criteria. When mineral resources (other than spectrum) are alienated for commercial profit-maximization by private parties without any offsetting social or welfare purpose, the decision to not adopt competitive bidding (auction) methods - which are more preferable for revenue maximization - may be arbitrary and subject to judicial review. A decision to grant mining lease renewals that is hasty, ignores available material on violations, fails to comply with the granting authority's own policy, lacks application of mind to statutory criteria of 'interests of mineral development', and is timed to circumvent impending legal changes (new auction requirement), is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. Second renewals of mining leases granted in violation of a prior Supreme Court judgment mandating fresh leases must be set aside.

   On this section: Provides authority for action against environmental violations; Court directed State to take action against violators under these sections

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.