Monday musings: MPCB’s track record raises more questions than answers
In theory, the MPCB’s mandate is clear: to prevent and control pollution, ensuring the protection of Maharashtra’s environment
The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), tasked with safeguarding the state’s environment, finds itself once again at the centre of controversy.
The recent inspection of the Mercedes-Benz assembly plant at Chakan, led by MPCB chairman Siddhesh Kadam, has raised significant questions — not just about the automaker’s compliance with environmental standards, but about the transparency and efficacy of this environmental watchdog itself.
In theory, the MPCB’s mandate is clear: to prevent and control pollution, ensuring the protection of Maharashtra’s environment. However, the board’s track record in recent years suggests a pattern of inconsistencies and, at times, a lack of decisive action. The surprise inspection at the Mercedes-Benz plant, followed by a PR blitz and the hasty deletion of social media posts, raises concerns about the board’s operational methods and its ability to enforce its regulations effectively.
Mercedes-Benz on its part has claimed, “We adhere to the most stringent global standards in production quality, to uphold high environment and sustainability practices and to comply to mandatory regulations and requirements.”
If it is established that Mercedes-Benz has indeed failed to comply with environmental regulations, the onus lies squarely on the automaker to rectify these issues promptly and transparently.
It is the responsibility of any and every firm to ensure that its operations align with both local laws and the rigorous environmental benchmarks it upholds internationally. Compliance cannot be selective or compromised, especially when the stakes involve public health and environmental sustainability. Should non-compliance be confirmed, the company must not only address the violations but also take proactive steps to prevent future lapses. This includes upgrading facilities, improving waste management practices, and engaging openly with regulatory bodies and the public to rebuild trust. Environmental stewardship is not just a regulatory requirement but a corporate responsibility that Mercedes-Benz must fulfil fully.
However, the recent case is far from an isolated incident. Across Maharashtra, pollution remains a persistent issue, whether it’s the air quality in major cities, the untreated effluents in rivers, or the rampant noise and air pollution during festivals.
The MPCB, despite being armed with considerable regulatory power, has often been perceived as reactive rather than proactive. There is a growing perception that the board is more focused on optics than on implementing long-term solutions.
The watchdog has the power to prosecute noise, air and water norm violators. However, it’s handling of noise pollution cases against Ganesh mandals or water and air pollution in industrial zones has frequently come under criticism. Several major industrial plants have been flagged for non-compliance with environmental norms, yet punitive actions are rarely followed through in a manner that leads to sustained improvement. The reliance on temporary measures, like the forfeiture of bank guarantees, raises the question: Are these steps adequate to address the underlying issues, or are they merely symbolic gestures?
The lack of transparency further complicates matters. In the Mercedes-Benz case, the use of a private PR firm to publicize the inspection, followed by the sudden deletion of those posts, adds a layer of opacity that undermines public trust. If the violations at the plant are as serious as claimed, why the reluctance to provide a detailed, public account of the findings? And why involve external PR professionals in a matter that should be handled directly by the MPCB’s communication channels?
Additionally, the questions surrounding Kadam’s appointment as MPCB chairman—given his background and limited experience in environmental matters—cannot be ignored. The timing and circumstances of his appointment suggest that political considerations may have played a role, potentially at the expense of technical expertise. This raises broader concerns about whether the MPCB’s leadership is fully equipped to handle the complex environmental challenges facing the state.
While the MPCB continues to carry out inspections and issue notices, the larger question is whether these actions are resulting in meaningful, measurable improvements in environmental quality. Are we seeing a genuine commitment to reducing pollution across the board, or are these actions simply ticking boxes without addressing the root causes?
The situation demands a thorough review of the MPCB’s practices, priorities, and leadership. A more transparent, accountable, and technically competent approach is essential if the board is to fulfil its mandate and regain public trust. As Maharashtra faces growing environmental challenges, the role of the MPCB has never been more critical. The board must demonstrate that it is up to the task, not just in words but in sustained effective action.