Environment in Law: The Statutory Definition
Chapter Three
Syllabus topic 1, "The Idea of Environment"
Pages 9 to 12 of 595
In one line
Indian law defines the environment once, very widely, in the Act of 1986, and defines pollution of particular media more narrowly in the two Acts that came before it.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 contains the general statutory definition of environment in section 2(a) and of environmental pollution in section 2(c); the Water Act 1974 and the Air Act 1981 contain earlier and narrower definitions confined to the medium each of them regulates.
Why the law needs a definition at all
A statute cannot be enforced against a wrong nobody can identify. If the Act of 1986 had simply empowered the Central Government to protect the environment without saying what the environment is, every prosecution would begin with an argument about whether the thing damaged was environmental at all.
There is a second reason, and it is the one that matters on this paper. The three definitions were written twelve and five years apart, and reading them together shows the idea of environment widening inside Indian law itself. That is a better answer to the University's question about the conventional and the modern concept than any amount of general description.
The provision itself
Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986.
"environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;
Section 2(b).
"environmental pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment;
Section 2(c).
"environmental pollution" means the presence in the environment of any environmental pollutant;
Section 2(e).
"hazardous substance" means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plant, micro-organism, property or the environment;
Broken down
Take section 2(a) apart, because every word of it has been used in argument.
- "includes". The definition is inclusive, not exhaustive. A court may hold that something not named is nevertheless part of the environment. Had Parliament written "means", the list would have been a boundary.
- "water, air and land". The three media. Nothing here about noise, and nothing about the built environment as such, but see the fourth point.
- "and the inter-relationship which exists among and between". The clause that turns a list into a system, discussed in the previous chapter.
- "human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property". Human beings are inside the environment rather than outside looking at it. Micro-organisms are named expressly. Property is named, which brings the built world in.
Now section 2(b), which is where the real work is done.
Environment in Law: The Statutory Definition
- "any solid, liquid or gaseous substance". A physical substance. Noise, being a wave rather than a substance, is not obviously covered by these words, which is why the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 were made under the Act's rule-making power rather than left to the definition.
- "present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment". The critical phrase. A substance is not a pollutant in itself; it is a pollutant at a concentration. Water in a river is not a pollutant; hot water discharged in quantity may be. This is why Indian pollution control is built on standards rather than on prohibitions.
- "or tend to be". Injury need not be proved. A tendency is enough. This is the statutory root of the precautionary approach, years before the courts adopted the precautionary principle by name.
And section 2(c), which is deliberately circular and deliberately short: environmental pollution is simply the presence of a pollutant in the environment. No harm need be shown at all, because the harm has already been built into the definition of the pollutant.
Worked example
A sugar factory near Ahmednagar discharges spent wash into a stream at a temperature of about fifty degrees. The discharge is not toxic; the water is clean by every chemical measure the factory reports. Fish in the stream die for two kilometres downstream.
Is this environmental pollution? Take the definitions in order. Is heated water "any solid, liquid or gaseous substance"? Yes, it is a liquid. Is it "present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment"? The word concentration reads oddly for heat, but the substance is the water and the quantity discharged is what makes it injurious; and injury to the environment includes injury to "other living creatures", which is inside section 2(a). So the discharge is an environmental pollutant under section 2(b), and its presence is environmental pollution under section 2(c).
Now try it under the Water Act 1974. Section 2(e) of that Act defines pollution as such contamination of water, or such alteration of its physical, chemical or biological properties, or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent, as is likely to create a nuisance or render the water harmful to public health or to legitimate uses or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms. "Alteration of its physical properties" catches temperature squarely, and harm to aquatic organisms is expressly named.
Both Acts reach it. But notice which one had to reason and which one simply applied: the medium-specific Act is a better fit because it was written for water, while the general Act is wider but blunter. That is the trade-off Parliament made in 1986.
Environment in Law: The Statutory Definition
The three definitions compared
| Water Act 1974, s.2(e) | Air Act 1981, s.2(a) and 2(b) | EPA 1986, s.2(a) to 2(c) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is defined | Pollution of water | Air pollutant, and air pollution | Environment, pollutant, and pollution |
| Medium | Water only | Air only | Water, air and land, and their interrelationships |
| Test | Contamination or alteration likely to create a nuisance or be harmful | A substance present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious | A substance in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to environment |
| Harm to whom | Public health, legitimate uses, animals, plants, aquatic organisms | Human beings, other living creatures, plants, property or environment | Environment, which itself includes people, creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property |
| Noise | Not covered | Inside the definition of air pollutant, as amended | Not in the definition; dealt with by rules |
That table is the answer to a question about the conventional and modern concepts of environment as Indian law sees them. In 1974 Parliament thought about water. In 1981 it thought about air, and within six years had to amend that Act to squeeze noise in. In 1986 it stopped thinking in media and defined the thing itself.
What the definitions do NOT do
They do not define pollution as harm. Nothing in section 2(c) requires damage to be proved. The offence, and the liability, attach to presence at a concentration.
They do not create a right. A statutory definition tells you what a word means in that statute. The right to a clean environment in Indian law comes from Article 21 and not from section 2(a), and a student who cites the Act for the right has cited the wrong instrument.
They do not cover everything. The 1986 definition is inclusive, which is a strength, but the Act still had to be supplemented by rules for noise, for hazardous waste, for coastal zones and for impact assessment. A definition is a starting point and not a scheme.
Amendments and the current position
The Act of 1986 was amended substantially by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2023, but the amendment did not touch the definitions. What it changed was the consequence: sections 15 to 15F now impose monetary penalties adjudicated by an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary, in place of the imprisonment the original section 15 provided, and section 16 creates an Environmental Protection Fund into which the penalties are credited. The definitions in section 2 stand exactly as enacted in 1986.
The Air Act's definition of air pollutant carries the words "(including noise)" as an amendment, and the only amending Act named in the text of that statute is the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act 1987 (47 of 1987), whose provisions came into force on 1 April 1988. Noise is therefore an air pollutant in Indian law, which is a small oddity worth remembering because it is occasionally asked.
Environment in Law: The Statutory Definition
Quick revision
- Section 2(a), EPA 1986: environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship among them and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. Inclusive, not exhaustive.
- Section 2(b): an environmental pollutant is a solid, liquid or gaseous substance in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious. Concentration, not identity, is what makes a substance a pollutant.
- Section 2(c): environmental pollution is simply the presence of a pollutant in the environment. No proof of damage is required.
- The Water Act 1974 and the Air Act 1981 define pollution medium by medium; the Act of 1986 defines the environment itself. Reading the three in order shows the idea widening inside the statute book.
- Noise is an air pollutant under the Air Act: section 2(a) reads "any solid, liquid or gaseous substance (including noise)", the bracketed words having been added by amendment.
- The Jan Vishwas Act 2023 replaced imprisonment with penalties in sections 15 to 15F and created an Environmental Protection Fund in section 16. It did not touch section 2.
Test yourself
1. Why is it significant that section 2(a) says "includes" rather than "means"?
Because an inclusive definition is not a boundary. A court may hold that something not named in the list is nevertheless part of the environment, which it could not do if Parliament had used the exhaustive form.
2. A factory argues that the substance it discharges is a naturally occurring mineral and therefore cannot be a pollutant. Is that a good argument?
No. Section 2(b) does not ask what the substance is but at what concentration it is present. A naturally occurring substance present in a concentration that is, or tends to be, injurious to the environment is an environmental pollutant.
3. What does the phrase "or tend to be" in section 2(b) add?
It removes the need to prove actual injury. A tendency to injure is enough, which anticipates in the statute of 1986 the precautionary principle the Supreme Court adopted by name in 1996.
4. Is noise environmental pollution under the Act of 1986?
Not directly on the words of section 2(b), which speaks of a solid, liquid or gaseous substance. Noise is dealt with as an air pollutant under the Air Act 1981, whose section 2(a) carries the amended words "(including noise)", and by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000, which were made under the rule-making power of the Act of 1986 rather than under its definitions.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.