CPCB vs SPCB: The Central and State Pollution Control Boards Compared

India's pollution control system has two tiers. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is the national technical and coordinating body that sets standards and guides; the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) are the enforcement bodies that grant consents, inspect industries and shut down violators. Both are created by the Water Act, 1974 and function under the Air Act, 1981 and the rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Understanding how they divide work, and how the Centre can direct the States, is essential for any question on pollution control institutions.

1. The Central Pollution Control Board

The CPCB was constituted in September 1974 under Section 3 of the Water Act (renamed in 1988) and functions as the Central Board under Section 3 of the Air Act. It is a body corporate, headquartered in Delhi, and acts as the technical wing of the MoEFCC. It consists of a full-time Chairman nominated by the Central Government, up to five Central officials, up to five members of State Boards, up to three non-officials, two representatives of Central PSUs, and a full-time Member-Secretary. Its functions under Section 16 of both Acts include advising the Centre, coordinating State Boards and resolving disputes among them, laying down standards (including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards), research, training, national monitoring programmes, and manuals and codes. Under delegated EPA powers it issues directions under Section 5, runs EPR portals, publishes the AQI, and has framed the categorisation of industries and the methodology for environmental compensation. It acts as the State Board for Union territories, delegating to Pollution Control Committees such as the DPCC.

2. The State Pollution Control Boards

Each State has a Board under Section 4 of the Water Act (and Sections 4 and 5 of the Air Act), nominated by the State Government, with a full-time Chairman, up to five State officials, up to five members from local authorities, up to three non-officials, two representatives of State PSUs, and a full-time Member-Secretary. Under Section 17 of both Acts, the SPCB plans a comprehensive State programme, advises the State Government (including on the location of industries), inspects plants, lays down effluent and emission standards (which may be stricter than national standards), grants, refuses, reviews and revokes consents (Sections 25 to 27, Water Act; Section 21, Air Act), issues directions including closure (Section 33A, Water Act; Section 31A, Air Act), applies to courts for injunctions (Section 33, Water Act), and enforces the waste, noise and other rules. In DPCC v. Lodhi Property (2025) the Supreme Court upheld the Boards' power to levy restitutionary and compensatory damages.

3. Relationship: Sections 18 and 61 to 62

Under Section 18 of both Acts, the CPCB is bound by the directions of the Central Government, and each SPCB is bound by the directions of the CPCB or the State Government. If a State Government's direction conflicts with the CPCB's, the matter is referred to the Central Government, whose decision is final. Where a State Board fails to comply with a CPCB direction and an emergency arises, the Central Government may direct the CPCB to perform the State Board's functions. The Central Government may supersede the CPCB (Section 61) and a State Government may supersede an SPCB (Section 62) for persistent default. In practice, the CPCB uses Section 18(1)(b) directions to require State Boards to act, for example to mandate online continuous monitoring.

4. Issues and Case Law

The Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari, (2018) 11 SCC 734, expressed concern that many State Boards were headed by persons without relevant expertise and asked the executive to frame rules on qualifications. Critics also point to shortage of technical staff, dependence on consent fees, and limited independence of State Boards from State Governments. The Water Amendment Act, 2024 allows the Central Government to prescribe the manner of nominating State Board chairpersons and to issue binding consent guidelines, which some see as centralisation. In the NCR, both are subordinate to the CAQM's directions on air quality.

5. Related Topics and Provisions