The issue of environmental protection and pollution control in India has become a matter of public importance. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is a key statute aimed at addressing water pollution in India. Under Section 33A of this Act, the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) have been empowered to take necessary actions to ensure the prevention and control of water pollution. This article examines the scope of the SPCB's power to disconnect electricity to industrial units that violate pollution norms, within the ambit of Section 33A. It explores the constitutional and statutory basis for such actions, supported by relevant judicial interpretations, and critically analyzes key case laws that affirm this authority.

Introduction
Water pollution is a pervasive issue in India, severely affecting public health, ecology, and the country's water resources. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, was enacted to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain the wholesomeness of water bodies. Section 33A of the Act empowers the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) to take measures such as the closure of industries and the disconnection of essential services, including electricity and water, to prevent pollution. This provision is an essential tool in the regulatory arsenal of SPCBs, ensuring compliance with environmental standards. This article seeks to explore whether the disconnection of electricity by the State Board falls within the legal framework of the powers granted under Section 33A of the Water Act, with special reference to judicial precedents and statutory interpretation.

Legal Framework and Scope of Section 33A

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, was a pioneering statute that set the tone for environmental protection in India. Section 33A, inserted by an amendment in 1988, provides the State Pollution Control Boards with broad authority to issue directions to any person, officer, or authority, including orders to "close, prohibit or regulate" any industry or to stop the supply of electricity, water, or any other service. The statutory language of Section 33A indicates a clear legislative intent to empower the SPCBs to take stringent actions in cases of non-compliance with pollution control norms.

The disconnection of electricity, being a critical utility for industrial operations, acts as a deterrent for industries that persistently violate pollution standards. The purpose behind such provisions is to compel industries to adopt necessary pollution control measures. Section 33A is an extension of the State's regulatory powers to ensure that environmental harm is minimized and industries are held accountable for their polluting activities.

Judicial Precedents and Analysis

The courts in India have upheld the powers of the SPCBs under Section 33A, affirming that such actions are necessary for the effective enforcement of environmental laws. Some of the key judicial pronouncements are discussed below:
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (2007) 6 SCC 151
In this case, the Supreme Court of India was called upon to examine the power of the State Pollution Control Board to direct the disconnection of electricity to industries that failed to comply with pollution control norms. The Court held that the provisions of Section 33A of the Water Act are clear and unambiguous in empowering the SPCBs to direct the closure or regulation of industrial units, including the cessation of electricity supply. The Court emphasized that the Board's action was within its statutory powers to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The decision reinforced the role of SPCBs in enforcing pollution control standards and affirmed that disconnection of electricity is a legitimate and necessary measure under Section 33A.

Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
Although primarily concerned with the issue of groundwater pollution, this landmark judgment underscored the principle of sustainable development and the precautionary principle in environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the powers of the SPCBs to take stringent measures, including the disconnection of utilities, to prevent further environmental degradation. The Court ruled that the powers under Section 33A must be exercised in public interest, ensuring that industries do not continue polluting in violation of environmental norms.

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (2013) 4 SCC 575
In this case, the State Pollution Control Board directed the closure of Sterlite Industries' copper smelter plant and the disconnection of its electricity due to its non-compliance with pollution control standards. The Supreme Court upheld the Board's action under Section 33A of the Water Act, affirming that such measures were within the statutory powers of the Board to protect the environment and public health. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing industrial development with environmental protection and reiterated the role of SPCBs as regulatory authorities empowered to take drastic measures like electricity disconnection to ensure compliance.

Constitutional and Statutory Basis

The power conferred upon the SPCBs under Section 33A is not merely statutory but also finds support in constitutional provisions. Article 48A of the Indian Constitution enjoins the State to endeavor to protect and improve the environment. Further, Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, has been judicially interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598). Therefore, the disconnection of electricity to prevent water pollution is a necessary and proportionate measure that aligns with the State's duty to protect environmental and public health.

Additionally, the Pollution Control Boards, as statutory bodies, are expected to ensure that industrial operations do not harm the environment. The regulatory powers granted under Section 33A enable these Boards to act decisively against violators, ensuring that the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle are upheld.

Conclusion
The State Pollution Control Board's action of disconnecting electricity under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is a lawful and necessary measure to ensure compliance with environmental norms. The statutory framework, supported by judicial precedents, affirms the authority of SPCBs to take stringent action, including the disconnection of essential services, to prevent environmental harm.

The courts have consistently upheld this power, emphasizing its necessity in enforcing pollution control measures. As industries continue to pose significant threats to water resources, the power to disconnect electricity serves as a critical tool in the State's effort to regulate and control water pollution effectively.

References:

• Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (2007) 6 SCC 151
• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
• Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (2013) 4 SCC 575
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
• Constitution of India, Article 21 and Article 48A