Authored By: Reyaz Ahmad
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
1. Introduction
The Himalayan region of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh are among India’s most environmentally sensitive regions. Fragile glaciers, cold desert ecosystems, biodiversity hotspots, and crucial watersheds are increasingly under pressure due to tourism, unregulated minor mineral extraction and development. At the same time, environmental offences here are potentially capable of causing irreparable harm. India has an extensive legal framework to criminalize acts of environmental destruction. But the disconnect between the strength of the laws and the enforcement in practice remains a problem for the region.
The article examines the environment-related criminal law regime for the area and analyzes enforcement trends with a view to suggesting improvements. It argues that while India’s laws on environmental offences are generally well-conceived, difficulties in enforcement and a tendency to deal with them as compoundable regulatory offences dilute the intended effect. The article has five sections after this introduction. Section 2 analyzes the key legal framework. Section 3 situates the region’s peculiarities with regard to the laws listed above. Section 4 critically analyzes enforcement trends and challenges. Section 5 offers suggestions, and Section 6 offers a brief conclusion.
2. Legal Framework Governing Environmental Offences in India
The Environment (Protection) Act 1986[1] originally provided that violation of the provisions of the Act, or of any rules, orders or directions made under it, if liable to imprisonment, could be punished with imprisonment for a term extending up to five years, or a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. Where such a violation persisted, a further penalty of up to five thousand rupees could be imposed every day till compliance. Following the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2023,[2] which substituted sections 15 to 17 of the Act with effect from 1 April 2024, contraventions are now met principally with monetary penalties of between ten thousand and fifteen lakh rupees, determined by an adjudicating officer, with imprisonment retained only in limited circumstances. The Central Government and its duly authorized officials can exercise wide powers of direction, including closure of industries and regulation of hazardous operations.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972[3] provides for a framework for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants, and regulation of protected areas. Violations entail substantial penalties, including imprisonment for contraventions in relation to Schedule I species and activities in National Parks and Sanctuaries. The Wildlife (Protection) Act now regulates both the Union Territories uniformly, following the reorganization. Other relevant statutes include: the Indian Forest Act of 1927[4] and the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980,[5] which regulate forest produce and forest land use; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974[6] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981,[7] which cover offences like unauthorized discharge of pollutants; and residual provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023,[8] which apply to public nuisances, water pollution and mischief.
The National Green Tribunal established under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010[9] has original jurisdiction in matters of civil litigation which raise significant issues of fact or law concerning environmental preservation and has developed a comprehensive jurisprudence on the polluter-pays and precautionary principles. The Tribunal is not a criminal court, but its orders frequently serve as the basis for criminal and quasi-criminal prosecution or action by regulatory bodies. Collectively, this legal framework provides for a wide array of criminal and regulatory penalties. The crucial question is one of enforcement, especially for the Himalayan region of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
3. The Special Context of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
The region’s ecological sensitiveness is beyond doubt: the cold deserts of Ladakh (Drass), glacier-fed rivers, forests and wetlands of the Kashmir Valley are an interconnected system. Large-scale riverbed mining, construction blight and traffic intrusion into habitats, pollution of lakes and the like pose an immediate threat to the entire ecosystem. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019[10] has changed the legal landscape of the State. Now, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Act and the forest laws apply uniformly to the region and its Union Territories. The onus of enforcement rests with agencies which are still getting accustomed to the new territorial jurisdiction.
In recent years, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has recorded the disappearance of a large number of natural lakes from the region.[11] Concurrently, the pressures of infrastructure, tourism (and consequent traffic), and minor mineral, sand and Karewa extraction dominate. These frequently overlap with the Environment (Protection) Act, the Wildlife (Protection) Act and forest laws, creating numerous potential offences of both a regulatory and a criminal nature.
4. Enforcement Challenges and Critical Analysis
4.1 The Gap between Seizure and Prosecution
Recent statistics throw up startling figures.[12] While thousands of vehicles and machines involved in illegal mining in the region have been seized every year, the number of First Information Reports (FIRs) filed is in the hundreds. Many of the thousands of cases of illegal mining or environmental pollution are compounded, and the offender is made to pay a fine, but not prosecuted. While compounding may serve the twin purpose of recovery of expenses and temporary cessation of illegal activity, it often serves to render trivial what the legislature did not intend to be a compoundable offence. Habitual offenders are likely to continue their activities, particularly in inaccessible rivers, where prosecution rates are low.
4.2 Institutional and Evidentiary Constraints
Environmental enforcement spans several agencies: the Forest Department, Wildlife Protection Department, Pollution Control Committee, Mining Department and the police. There is often overlap in jurisdictions. Many officers lack training in environmental law, environmental forensics, chain of custody of samples and other evidential requirements to prove causation under the Environment (Protection) Act or the Wildlife (Protection) Act. In Ladakh and the higher reaches of Kashmir, the distances and inaccessibility of sites cause delays for inspections, investigations and witness appearances, which the accused frequently take advantage of.
The National Green Tribunal has frequently stepped in to direct action when the usual authorities failed to do so. Orders against illegal riverbed mining, unauthorized sewage discharge into the Manasbal wetland, solid-waste mismanagement and large-scale Karewa extraction are examples of such environmental issues which attract the Tribunal’s attention.[13] While it is heartening that the Tribunal is taking cognizance of such matters, the fact remains that it is a judicial body, and such interventions are not sustainable.
4.3 Positive Enforcement Signals and Remaining Gaps
There are, however, some positive enforcement signals. In Ladakh, large fines are being imposed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act for illegal off-roading on or near habitats, including at Pangong Lake and in the Changthang Cold Desert Wildlife Sanctuary. There may be potential for treating violations of this kind as substantive offences rather than regulatory ones. Simultaneously, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has been watching over the Dal Lake, ensuring that its buffer zones are not infringed.[14] But these are exceptions, which point to a more general trend that the severity of the punishments under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act is often not matched by the practical steps taken to enforce them in ecologically precarious areas.
5. Suggestions and Way Forward
First, environmental offences of a serious nature (those involving protected areas, Schedule I species, extensive damage to rivers and wetlands) should be treated as non-compoundable or subject to stringent conditions for compounding. Clear guidance to the field forces as to when offences are purely technical and when they entail substantial ecological harm would be useful.
Second, environmental investigation cells or designated officers may need to be established within the police and the forest/wildlife departments, and given training in the specific requirements for environmental evidence. Satellites, drones, geotagged photography, water-quality sensors and other technology can reduce the evidential burden for officers on the ground.
Third, inter-agency coordination needs to be developed at the level of districts and Union Territories, and clear responsibility for different categories of offences allocated. Public disclosure of FIR registration, charge-sheets presented and conviction rates for environmental crimes on a regular basis may provide a useful watchdog function.
Fourth, guidelines or revised penalties for notified eco-sensitive zones and high-altitude protected areas may need to be considered under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Community participation can be fostered, for instance, in Drass and other remote valleys of Ladakh, in biodiversity management committees or eco-development, which can play an indirect role in environmental enforcement.
Finally, the capacity of the Pollution Control Committee and the Wildlife and Forest Departments to investigate and prosecute needs to be built through staff recruitment, laboratory equipment, and training. The judiciary will always be a critical backstop but cannot be relied on as a permanent enforcement mechanism.
6. Conclusion
The legal framework for dealing with environmental offenders in India is comprehensive and, following recent amendments, applies fully to Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. However, despite the ability of the Environment (Protection) Act and associated laws to make a criminal out of any offender, the problem is one of enforcement. In other words, despite there being laws on the books, the process of taking a case from seizure to conviction is non-trivial, leaving room for lax enforcement to occur. In addition, the challenging geography of the region creates additional difficulties for any regulatory body.
The problem of enforcing environmental regulations in ecologically sensitive areas transcends immediate challenges and threatens to undermine the region’s delicate environmental balance. The loss of water security, biodiversity, and overall sustainability is an existential threat to the area. This danger must be countered not only by prioritizing the enforcement of environmental laws but also by ensuring that appropriate resources are devoted to the task. After all, to secure the region’s environmental future, India must ensure that criminal law is used to its maximum potential.
References
[1] Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, INDIA CODE (1986).
[2] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[3] Wildlife (Protection) Act, No. 53 of 1972, INDIA CODE (1972).
[4] Indian Forest Act, No. 16 of 1927, INDIA CODE (1927).
[5] Forest (Conservation) Act, No. 69 of 1980, INDIA CODE (1980).
[6] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No. 6 of 1974, INDIA CODE (1974).
[7] Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No. 14 of 1981, INDIA CODE (1981).
[8] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[9] National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, INDIA CODE (2010).
[10] Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, No. 34 of 2019, INDIA CODE (2019).
[11] Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Performance Audit on Conservation of Lakes in Jammu and Kashmir (covering 2017-22).
[12] Official enforcement statistics on seizures, FIRs and penalties relating to illegal mining in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2024-26).
[13] National Green Tribunal, various orders and joint committee reports concerning riverbed mining, Karewa extraction, wetland pollution and solid-waste management in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Original Applications, 2022-2026).
[14] High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, orders concerning Dal Lake buffer zones, Sonamarg, Zero Point Zojila and related eco-sensitive areas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
Environment (Protection) Act 1986
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
Indian Forest Act 1927
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957
National Green Tribunal Act 2010
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972
SECONDARY SOURCES
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Performance Audit on Conservation of Lakes in Jammu and Kashmir (covering 2017–22)
National Green Tribunal, various orders and joint committee reports concerning riverbed mining, Karewa extraction, wetland pollution and solid-waste management in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Original Applications, 2022–2026)
Official enforcement statistics on seizures, FIRs and penalties relating to illegal mining in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2024–26)
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, orders concerning Dal Lake buffer zones, Sonamarg , Zero point Zojila and related eco-sensitive areas
