Understaffed and overburdened: The state of pollution control boards in India

On July 10, the Supreme Court, while hearing a matter pertaining to vacant posts in statutory pollution control boards of various states, noted the sad state of affairs of the Delhi Pollution Control Board, questioning its efficiency in light of 233 vacancies out of 344 sanctioned posts.

The Court also criticised the “shortcut” method of employing workers on a contractual basis instead of providing regular full-time appointments. This brings to light the broader challenges faced by pollution control authorities in India.

The history of pollution control in India dates back to the early 1970s, when the Government of India started to recognise the need for regulating and controlling environmental pollution. One of the first steps taken in this direction was the establishment of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in 1974, under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The CPCB was set up with the primary objective of coordinating the activities of state pollution control boards (SPCBs) and promoting research and development in the field of environmental pollution control. The Board was also responsible for providing technical assistance and guidance to industries, municipalities and other agencies in matters related to pollution control.

Over the years, several other pollution control boards were established at the state level, under the Water Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. These boards were given the responsibility of implementing and enforcing pollution control measures within their respective states.

The functioning of pollution control boards in India has evolved significantly over the years, with a focus on improving the regulatory framework and enhancing the effectiveness of pollution control measures. Despite sporadic developments, there are several challenges faced by pollution control boards in India, including inadequate staffing and resources, lack of public awareness and participation, and the need for more stringent regulatory measures to address the growing concerns of pollution.

Composition and membership of pollution control boards

The structure and functioning of pollution control boards in different states of India vary slightly depending on the state's specific laws and regulations. However, the broad functions and responsibilities of these boards remain the same, which include monitoring, controlling and regulating pollution.

State-level pollution control boards are responsible for enforcing pollution control measures in their respective states. These boards are headed by a chairperson who is usually a senior government official. The number of members and their specific roles and responsibilities may vary from state to state.

Civil society, academia, public health and the medical community are underrepresented on the boards responsible for monitoring and regulating pollution in India. The majority of representation comes from government agencies, public sector organizations and business groups. This lack of diversity raises questions regarding the effectiveness of these boards in tackling the complicated and varied issue of pollution.

The law requires the boards to have at least two members with knowledge and experience in air quality management, although the majority of boards have vacancies in technical positions.

The selection of Chairpersons and Member Secretaries for SPCBs frequently favours individuals with a government background over those with environmental management degree or technical expertise. Active public officials are more suited for the post of Chairpersons, whereas the Member Secretary should have a technical background. This preference is based on the assumption that civil servants are better prepared to manage inter-departmental cooperation and connect the SPCB's work with the state government's aims, notwithstanding the SPCBs' autonomy.

In a number of states, the position of the Chairman is part-time. Most Chairpersons hold secondary positions in other government agencies, preventing them from focusing solely on the SPCB's mission and operations. This reduces the efficacy of the SPCBs, as the Chairperson cannot dedicate enough time and attention to pollution control operations.

The terms of Chairpersons and Member Secretaries vary greatly, despite the fact that the majority of governments have set terms for both roles. Some Chairpersons and Member Secretaries have maintained their positions for less than a year. The average tenure of the previous five Chairpersons is longer than three years in just two states, and only because of extreme outliers who held positions for up to seven years. The short tenures make it difficult for Chairpersons and Member Secretaries to successfully develop and implement long-term strategies for pollution reduction, as the majority of their time is devoted to learning the requirements of their position.

Challenges and opportunities for pollution control boards in India

PCBs in India face various challenges in fulfilling their mandate of controlling and preventing pollution. One of the significant challenges is the lack of financial and human resources. PCBs often have limited funding, staff and equipment to monitor and enforce environmental regulations effectively. A recent report submitted to the National Green Tribunal highlighted that more than 50% of the sanctioned posts in all state pollution control boards and committees are lying vacant. This shortage of personnel severely hampers the effectiveness of pollution control efforts across the country. According to the report, 6,075 out of the 12,016 sanctioned posts (50.56%) in 28 state pollution control boards and 8 pollution control committees in union territories are vacant. For instance, Bihar has the highest vacancy rate at 84%, with 209 out of 249 posts unoccupied and Jharkhand follows with 73% of its posts vacant. The situation is similarly dire in other states, with vacancies ranging between 58% and 84% in places like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, and Ladakh.

These vacancies plague the entire functioning of the PCBs and affect their ability to conduct regular inspections of polluting industries and enforce penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, the PCBs' staff may not have sufficient technical expertise or training to assess the environmental impact of industrial activities and implement appropriate control measures.

According to Section 39 of the Water Act, the CPCB must submit its 'Annual Report' each financial year, detailing activities from the previous financial year, to the Central government. The government must present this report to both Houses of the Parliament within nine months from the last date of the previous year. However, no reports have been publicly available since 2020-21, raising concerns about the CPCB's effectiveness in addressing pollution and air quality management.

The representation, expertise and functioning of the boards responsible for monitoring and regulating pollution in India require significant improvements to effectively address the pressing issue of pollution in the country. The preference for civil servants and the lack of full-time commitment to the role of Chairperson should be addressed. While the PCBs in India face various challenges, there are also opportunities for them to improve their functioning and effectiveness. By leveraging technology, collaboration and capacity building, the PCBs can better fulfill their mandate of preventing and controlling pollution.

Shailee Basu is a Research Fellow with the Climate & Ecosystems team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.