Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Mann Ki Baat on August 25 reflected the country’s environmental concerns. The speech is a call for “a plastic-free mother India” by shunning single-use plastic. The PM also dealt with topics ranging from wildlife to climate justice, forests and cleanliness in public places. Later on, Home Minister Amit Shah indicated the Centre is mulling measures to stop the production of single-use plastic. There are reports about measures for a nationwide ban on certain types of plastic bags, straws, cups and sachets from October 2.
The fight against plastic is going to be a tough one. The industry has mighty lobbies. For the preservation of natural habitats, only extreme postures can lead to even moderate solutions. The role of courts in the protection of ecosystems is limited since implementation of existing laws is essentially in the domain of the executive. The umpires cannot always play the game even under the label of judicial activism. This is why the call from leaders at the helm of affairs becomes significant.
Collection and storage of plastic waste is a serious challenge. One has to now acknowledge the big role played by ragpickers in solid waste management in the country. They constitute the “only and largest recycling systems existing in the country” (Chaturvedi B, as quoted by Robert Edwards and Rachel Kellett, Life in Plastic). The Centre has to have a scheme to take care of the health and well-being of the poor ragpickers across the country. The formal integration of the ragpickers, as mandated by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules) is the government’s legal obligation. Plastic carry bags should be eradicated right at the production level, as those are not usually collected by the ragpickers. Online business giants should be legally prohibited from wrapping their wares in plastic. We need to act locally, while thinking globally.
Even before any serious legislative attempt, in the Ratlam Municipality Case (1980), Justice Krishna Iyer interpreted the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to say that “public nuisance … is a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law”. He explained that “decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies”. The Ratlam verdict connected the plight of slum dwellers to India’s cleanliness drive. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, which has now received international recognition, also needs to follow suit and create a new politics of ecology.
The country attempted to promulgate a comprehensive legislation to curb pollution by way of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. But many categories of pollution were not adequately addressed by it. The soil pollution on account of non-degradable materials was one such issue. With a view to improving the legal landscape, the Centre promulgated the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000. These are now replaced by the SWM Rules, 2016, with subsequent amendments. According to the rules, landfill sites cannot function proximate to habitation clusters, highways, public tanks or water supply wells.
These rules are, however, widely obeyed in their breach, resulting in great suffering to the people, especially the marginalised. The Plastic Waste Management Rules came into force in 1999, which were initially replaced by the rules of 2011, and thereafter by the rules of 2016 that were further amended with a richer content on the producer’s liability. The prevailing rules contemplate segregation of waste at the source. The generator’s responsibility also finds a place in the law’s agenda. These too need strict implementation at the ground level. The pollution control boards created by the statute remain a failed experiment. Rather than trying to curb pollution, many of the regional boards became the facilitator for pollution by legitimising the illegitimate through undue consents and unholy licences. Allegations of corruption against many of its officers also are not uncommon.
In India, at least 62 million tonnes of waste is generated annually, out of which 5.6 million tonnes is plastic waste, according to a statement made in 2016 by Union minister Prakash Javadekar. Major tourist destinations are contaminated with plastic waste displaying the
repulsive face of ‘incredible India’. Warning against anti-environmental activities is often insufficient. The country needs to evolve a new ecological penal code and a separate environmental police so as to make clean India initiatives really successful.
In the Karuna Society for Animals and Nature case (2016), the apex court refused to endorse a ban on plastic, but underlined the need to follow the rules. In that case, the top court refused to undertake a legislative or executive function for banning the evil. But when an alert government does it by way of legislative activism, the Karuna verdict is in no way an impediment.
Environmentalism, in a way, is Buddhism in disguise. The idea of non-violence, peace, liberty, equality and inter-being imbibed in the country’s Constitution are not purely western, as many seem to think. Such notions have roots in the Indian traditions as well. There is no way to conservation. Conservation is the way.
Kaleeswaram Raj
Lawyer in the Supreme Court of India
Email: kaleeswaramraj@gmail.com