Retired Justice K Chandru 
Chennai

Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | TNPCB & local bodies bound to prevent sewage discharge into lakes; citizens can seek NGT relief

Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, discharging untreated sewage into water bodies is strictly prohibited

Justice (Retd) K Chandru

Is the discharge of untreated sewage into lakes through stormwater drains permissible under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974? Do local authorities not have a mandatory statutory obligation to implement an Underground Sewerage Scheme (UGSS) to prevent such environmental harm and protect groundwater?

Also, what specific legal provisions enable citizens to compel the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to exercise its enforcement powers in these cases? Please clarify the legal remedies available to halt these discharges and ensure the authorities fulfil their duty to provide proper sewerage infrastructure. Could you also explain the liability of the Board for its failure to prevent such systemic water pollution?

-- P Viswanathan, Thirumurugan Salai, Chitlapakkam, Chennai

Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, discharging untreated sewage into water bodies is strictly prohibited. Local authorities have a mandatory statutory duty to ensure that sewage does not enter stormwater drains.

In the absence of a comprehensive Underground Sewerage Scheme (UGSS), authorities must immediately deploy Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) and install Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) to intercept and treat sewage.

If the TNPCB fails to exercise its enforcement powers, your primary remedy is to move the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT can issue directions to compel the implementation of infrastructure and hold authorities liable for environmental compensation in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle.

SC verdict awaited on online gaming rules as challenges to central and state laws persist

Regarding the final rules under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025, is the shift to voluntary registration for online social games legally consistent with the Act’s regulatory intent? Since Rule 4(2) previously implied mandatory registration for legal operation, does this relaxation create a potential loophole for non-monetised platforms to transition into unregulated money gaming?

Further, as e-sports registration remains mandatory, what specific legal criteria will the Online Gaming Authority of India use to distinguish "pre-declared prizes" in e-sports from "staking money" in prohibited money games? Please clarify the liability of developers if a voluntary social game is later reclassified as a banned money gaming platform.

— Prasanna Venkatesan, Harrington Road, Chennai

The central government's regulatory framework is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court. The PROG Act is a diluted version compared to the Tamil Nadu Act, which sought a total ban on games like online rummy. Although the Madras High Court struck down the state’s ban, that matter also rests with the Apex Court.

Government regulation alone may not be an effective means of curbing offshore agencies. Furthermore, the legal distinction between "pure games" and "betting" remains incredibly thin. Until the Supreme Court provides final clarity on these jurisdictional and definitional overlaps, the shift toward voluntary registration and the liability of developers remains in a state of legal flux.

TN Assembly polls 2026: Stalin interviews Udhay as DMK’s candidate screening gains momentum

Tamil Nadu: Groundwater level plunges in 29 districts, western region most affected

Chennai Metro Rail holds derailment drills, triggers brief panic

Govt directs faster processing of city gas projects, hikes commercial LPG allocation to ease supply stress

US, Iran trade threats of expanding war after strikes near Israeli areas tied to nuclear sites