Facing an Environmental Compensation Demand?

Environmental compensation is a demand for money to make good environmental damage. It is based on the polluter pays principle, which Indian courts have applied for decades. Boards, the Central Pollution Control Board, and the National Green Tribunal impose environmental compensation for violations ranging from discharge of untreated effluent and illegal groundwater extraction to dust at construction sites, improper waste handling, unmet EPR targets, and use of unapproved fuels. Amounts can run into lakhs or crores, often calculated by formula on the basis of the period of violation and the size or category of the unit.

In August 2025, in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v Lodhi Property Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court confirmed that pollution boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, and require bank guarantees, under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act. The Court also made clear that this power is to be used where environmental damage has been caused or is imminent, and that the compensation is not a punishment. Separate rules, such as the EPR rules for plastic, e-waste and batteries, the solid waste and C&D waste rules, and CAQM directions, provide their own compensation regimes. This page explains how compensation is assessed, the common errors in demands, how to contest them, and when settlement makes sense.

Is this your situation?

Environmental compensation at a glance

How compensation is usually calculated

For industrial violations, boards often apply the CPCB's methodology for environmental compensation, which multiplies a base amount by factors reflecting the pollution potential of the industry (linked to its category), the scale of operation, the location (for example, whether in a critically polluted area), and the number of days of violation. For specific rules, the formula is set in the rules or guidelines: EPR compensation is usually calculated per tonne of shortfall at rates set by category; groundwater compensation is linked to the quantity extracted and the area's category; construction dust compensation may be linked to the site area and type of violation.

Because amounts are formula-driven, the inputs decide the outcome. The most important inputs are the period of violation, the category or scale of the unit, and, for quantity-based formulas, the quantity assumed. Many demands assume the violation lasted from the last inspection, or from the date consent expired, until the date of the notice, without considering when compliance was actually restored. Others use the wrong category or production figure. Each input should be checked against the facts.

The Lodhi Property limits

The Supreme Court's 2025 decision settled a long debate. The Delhi High Court had earlier held that the Delhi Pollution Control Committee could not levy environmental compensation under Sections 33A and 31A. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the power to issue directions under these sections includes the power to require payment of restitutionary or compensatory damages and to require bank guarantees, as part of the boards' role in preventing and controlling pollution. At the same time, the Court said that these measures are not punitive. They can be imposed where environmental damage has been caused or is imminent, and the board must follow fair procedure and act on a rational basis.

For businesses, this means that a demand cannot simply be dismissed as beyond the board's power. But it also means that a demand must be connected to actual or imminent environmental damage, not merely to a technical lapse such as a late return, and should be reasoned. A demand for a paperwork lapse with no environmental consequence is open to challenge on that ground.

Common errors in demands

In our experience, demands often contain errors that can be corrected. The period of violation is overstated, ignoring dates on which consent was applied for, compliance restored, or the unit was closed. The unit's category is wrong, inflating the pollution index factor. Production or scale is taken from installed capacity rather than actual operation. For EPR, quantities are taken from incomplete returns, or certificates already transferred are not credited. For groundwater, extraction is assumed at the full pump capacity for every day rather than metered quantities. The demand is issued without a show-cause notice or hearing, or without explaining how the amount was reached.

Identifying these errors requires the unit's own records: consent history, production data, monitoring reports, metering data, portal records and correspondence. A reply that sets out the correct inputs and a recalculated figure, with documents, is far more persuasive than a general objection.

How to respond to a demand

Pay, contest or negotiate

Not every demand should be fought. Where the violation is clear, the calculation is broadly correct, and the amount is modest, paying promptly and fixing the problem may be the best business decision, especially if continued operation depends on the board's goodwill for renewal. Where the violation is real but the amount is inflated by errors, a reasoned reply seeking correction is usually the right path, and boards often revise demands on proof. Where the demand is beyond power, issued without any hearing, unconnected to any environmental damage, or wildly disproportionate, a legal challenge may be justified.

Paying under protest is sometimes useful where the board links renewal or revocation to payment, but it should be done in writing, making clear that the payment is without prejudice to your challenge. Some rules, such as the EPR and C&D rules, provide for partial return of compensation if the shortfall is made good within a period, which can affect the choice.

Challenges before the NGT and High Courts

Directions under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act, including those requiring compensation, are appealable to the National Green Tribunal under Section 16 of the NGT Act within 30 days, extendable for sufficient cause by up to 60 days. Compensation imposed under specific rules may be challenged according to the procedure in those rules, before the NGT, or by writ petition in the High Court where the demand is without jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice. Where compensation is directed by the NGT itself in an original application, the remedy is an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

The choice of forum depends on the source of the demand and the grounds. For NGT proceedings, see our network site ngtadvocates.com.

Time and typical cost

Our fees are agreed in writing at the start, stage by stage. They are not linked to the outcome.

Where compensation comes from

Documents usually needed

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad). This is what you can expect:

• Every input checked: period, category, scale and quantity.
• Recalculated figure: with supporting documents.
• Honest advice: on paying, contesting or negotiating.
• Challenges where justified: before the right forum.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes we see with compensation demands