http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

PETITIONER: DR. ASHOK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH             TRANSFER CASE (C) NOS.2 & 3 OF 1997                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK. J.      On the  basis of a letter by one Dr. Ashok addressed to the Chief  Justice of  India indicating therein that several insecticides,  colour   additives,  food  additives  are  in widespread use  in this  country  which  have  already  been banned in  several advanced  countries as  it has been found that those insecticides are carcinogenus, this Court treated the  letter   as  a   Petition  under   Article  32  of  the Constitution and  took up  the matter  as  a public Interest litigation. Notices  were  issued  to  the  Union  of  India through the  Secretary. Ministry  of Environment and Forest, through the  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  through Secretary, Ministry  of Industry  & Chemicals  as well as to pesticides Association  of India  through its Secretary Shri H.S. Bahl  and the  Asbestos Cement  Products  Manufacturers Association. The  Annexure to  the said  letter contained 21 chemicals and  additives and  a prayer  was  made  that  the respondents should  be directed to ban forthwith the import, production,  distribution,   sale  and  use  of  the  listed chemicals and  articles so  that the  citizens will  not  be exposed    to    the    hazards    which    the    aforesaid insecticides/additives are  capable of  being caused. It was alleged generally  in the  petition that  food. water,  air, drug and  cosmetic contaminataion are the general results of the widespread  use of  the chemical have been banned in the united States  of America  and rest  are in  the process  of being banned.  Though initially  the annexure  to the letter contained only 21 items of insecticides and additives but by way of an application 19 other chemicals were added and thus in  all   the  prayer   of  the  petitioner  is  to  prevent manufacture. production  and use  of 40  insecticides and/or additives.  Counter-affidavits   were  filed  on  behalf  of Secretary, pesticides  Association, Madras.  A supplementary affidavit was  also filed  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of Environment and  Forest. A  further affidavit was also filed in August  1989 by  the Deputy  Director General  of  Health Services giving  the available  information  on  the  listed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

chemicals   as to the carsinogenicity status on the basis of research carried  out by  the  Indian  Council  of  Chemical Research. It  was indicated  in the  said affidavit that the benefits accrued  as a  result of use of chemicals should be weighed against anticipated risk and whole issue be examined in totality before arriving at a conclusion. When the matter was heard  on 24th  September, 1996 this Court observed that there has  been  a  time  lag  between  the  filing  of  the affidavits and the date of hearing of the petition and there is no  material on  record to  indicate as  to  whether  any further stops  have been taken with regard to the control of use of  these harmful  pesticides and  chemicals and whether any further study has been made in that regard. The Union of India  was,  therefore,  granted  time  to  file  a  further detailed affidavit  clarifying the entire position. When the case was  taken up  for hearing  on 5th  November,  1996  it transpired that no further affidavit has been filed pursuant to the  earlier  direction  and  therefore,  the  Court  was constrained to  pass an  order  requiring  the  officers  of different Ministries  involved to be present in the Court on the next  date of  hearing and  required affidavit should be filed. Pursuant  to the  aforesaid order  of  the  Court  an additional affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary to the Government  of   India,  Ministry  of  Agriculture  on  18th November, 1996  stating  therein  the  steps  taken  by  the Government of  India in  prohibiting manufacture, import and use of certain chemicals and in permitting restricted use of certain other  chemicals and  insecticides. To the aforesaid affidavit a Notification dated 26th May, 1989 was annexed as Annexure 1  which Notification indicates that the Government of India  had set  up an  Expert Committee  with a  view  to review continuance  use in  India  of  pesticides  that  are either banned  or restricted  for use in other countries. To the said  additional affidavit  also annexed  a Notification dated 15th  May, 1990  of  the Ministry of Agriculture which Notification indicates  that the  Central  Government  after considering the  recommendations of the Expert Committee and after consultation  with the  Registration Committee  set up under the Insecticides Act 1968 cancelled the certificate of Registration in  respect of  Aaldrin, restricted  the use of Dieldrin, for  Locust  Control  in  desert  areas  by  plant Protection Adviser to the Government of India and restricted the use  of Ethylene  Dibromide as a Fumigant for Foodgrains through Central  Government,  State  Government,  Government Undertakings,  and   Government   Organisation   like   Food Corporation of  India and  Others. To  the  said  Additional Affidavit  yet  another  Notification  of  the  Ministry  of Agriculture  dated  20th  September,  1986  was  annexed  as Annexure III  which Notification prohibited the manufacture, import and use of Heptachlor and Chlordane and cancelled the Registration  Certificate   issued   by   the   Registration Committee to  Various Persons. It also prohibited the use of Alderin in  India and cancelled the Registration Certificate issued under the insecticides Act. It further transpires the Government  of   India,  Ministry      of   Agriculture   by Notification dated  1st January, 1996 cancelling certificate of Registration  in respect  of  Benzene  Haxachloride  with effect from  1st April,  1997, being of the opinion that the manufacture and  use of Benzene haxachloride shall be phased out progressively  and the production of its technical grade by the  existing manufacturers  reduced to  the extent of 50 per cent  by 31st  March, 1996  an totally  banned  by  31st March, 1997.   The  Notification  also  indicated  that  the Certificate  of   Registration   in   respect   of   Benzene Haxachloride shall  be deemed  to have  lapsed in respect of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

those registration  in respect of Benzene Haxachloride shall be deemed to have lapsed in respect of those registrants who are yet  to obtain  manufacture   licences. On behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the Director Ministry of Environment also  filed an  Additional Affidavit  indicating the steps  taken by  the  Environment  Ministry  Prohibiting import of Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Ministry of Health also filed  an   additional  affidavit  and  Ministry  of  Petro- chemicals   also filed an affidavit. When the case was taken up for  hearing on 21st November, 1996 and these  affidavits of different  Ministries were placed it was noticed that the affidavits have  dealt with 21 chemicals and additives which were listed  in the original petition. But there has been no response in  respect of  19 other chemicals and insecticides referred to  in the  additional list. It was also brought to the notice  of the Court some Writ petitions have been filed by the  manufacturers of  certain chemicals  challenging the Notification of  the Government  cancelling the Registration Certificate  issued   under   the   insecticides   Act   and Prohibiting the  Manufacture with  effect  from  1st  April, 1997. It  was stated that  a consolidated affidavit be filed by the Union of India in consultation with all the concerned Ministries in  respect of  40 chemicals  so that it would be easier  to  deal  with  the  problem.  In  response  to  the aforesaid direction  of the   Court dated 27th November,1996 the Under  Secretary to  the  Government  of  India  in  the Ministry of  Agriculture has  filed a consolidated affidavit dealing with  40 items  of chemicals  and the steps taken by the Government  of India  in the Concerned Ministries either prohibiting and/or  allowing restricted  manufacture, use of chemicals  on   a  thorough   study  and   on   receipt   of recommendations  from   the  experts.   On  the   basis   of applications  by   manufactures,  in  respect  of  the  writ Petitions pending  in Allahabad  High Court  and Madras High Court orders  were passed  by this  Court to  get the  cases transferred and  those transferred petitions were also heard alongwith main Writ Petition.      Chemicals, besides  food, air  and water,  have  always been part  of man’s environment in some measure. Even before the earliest  civilizations or  agriculture,  the  lightning flash caused  oxygen and  nitrogen of  the air  to  combine, producing oxides  of nitrogen  and the said nitrogen dioxide eventually combined  with water  and oxygen to form nitrates that significantly  enriched the  soil. Volcanos contributed sulphur dioxide  and particulates  to the air just as fossil fuel  burning   power  plants   do  today.   But  the  total contribution of  these sources  was small  and the earth was thinly  populated.  With  the  rise  of  civilizations;  the sources of  population increased  day by day. Water polluted with lead  from the  pipes used  in the  Roman  distribution system is  postulated to  have contributed to the decline of Rome. Miners  and metal  workers in the Middle Ages suffered occupational diseases  from   dusts and  fumes generated  in their trades.  As early  as in  1713 Ramazzini  in his  book "Diseases of  Workers" has  described the effects of many of these  chemical   pollutants  on   workers.  When  coal  was introduced as  a fuel  the problem  of pollution became much worse with  combinations of fog and smoke in London becoming most famous. With the recognition of the deleterious effects of chemicals,  especially  in  the  Workplace,  there  began measure for  the control  of  the release of these materials and   the   prevention   of   occupational   diseases.   The concentrations of  many of these materials in the atmosphere were quit  high. The  scientists began  research to find out the ways and means to reduce the contents of chemical in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

atmosphere so as to check the health hazards. In 1945 Warren Cook of  Switzerland published  a list  of the  limits  with abstracts of  the information  on which they were based. The United states  Public Health  Service  established  drinking water standards  in 1946,  Henry Smyth in  1956 reviewed the researches done in the field and proposed the name Threshold Limit Values  for limiting air concentration for the working environment.  The   American  conference   of   Governmental Industrial Hygienists  every  year  compiled  a  list  after annual review  indicating the  deleterious effect of Several Chemicals and  pesticides on  the human  health and the said study is  adopted by  the  occupational  Safety  and  Health Administration of  the Department of Labour as a Regulation. Until 1960 there was no legislation and it is only in 1960’s the Clean  Air Acts  were passed in the United states. There has been  constant research  on the  use  of  chemicals  and pesticides and its effect on the human health in most of the advance  countries   and  the   industries  also   spend   a substantial part of the money in establishing a research and development  organisations.  on  the  basis  of  experiments conducted and  datas available  the use of several chemicals and pesticides  have been either totally banned or have been permitted to  be used  in a  regulated manner depending upon the effect  of such  chemicals or  pesticides on  the  human system. In all ages men faced difficulty in protecting their crops on the field from small animals and disease organisms. An insect,  a field  mouse, the spore of a fungus. or a tiny root-eating worm is more difficult to deal with. Since these small  organisms   reproduce  rapidly,  their  total  eating capacity is  very great. Small pests may also be carriers of disease, Malaria and Yellow fever, spread by mosquitos, have killed more  people than all wars. Not all insects, rodents, fungi, and  soil microorganisms  are pests.  Most of them do not interfere  with people,  and many  are directly helpful. Millions of  small animals  live within a single cubic meter of healthy  soil. Most are necessary to the process of decay and hence  to the  recycling of  nutrients. Fungi,  too, are essential to  the  process  of  decay  in  all  the  world’s ecosystems. pests  have lived  side by  side with people for thousands of  years. At  times pest species have bloomed and brought disease  and famine.  But most  of the time, natural balance has  been maintained, and humans have lived together with insects  in reasonable harmony. In modern times, people are no  longer willing to accept these natural cycles. Human population is  now so  large that  tremendous quantities  of food are  needed. One  way to  increase crop  yields  is  to reduce  competition  from  insects.  Scientists  studying  a cabbage field  in United  States found 177 different species of insects  of which  only 5 species were significant pests. The agricultural  system is subject to the normal checks and balances of a natural ecosystem. If left alone, pest species are usually  dept under  control by their enemies. According to an  estimate insects  at 10 per cent of the food crops in the United  states in  1891   and at  that time    very  few pesticides  were  being  used.  The  pest  populations  were controlled by  insect predators, parasites, and disease. But in the  survey of  1970 it was found that the crop losses to insects rose  to 13 per cent. The question, however, whether it is on account of chemical sprays or whether farmers would be better  off if  no pesticides  were used  at all    still remains unanswered.  There is  no dispute that most chemical pesticides are  poisonous to  humans as  well as to insects. The organophosphates  which have  been used  extensively  in North America  since 1973  are much  more poisonous than the DDT which  was replaced by such organophosphates. Since mid-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

1940s many thousands of people have fallen sick or have died from severe  pesticide poisoning every year. At present more than half of these are children who are exposed to the toxic chemical through carelessness in packing or storage. Most of the others  are workers  who handle  these materials  in the factory or  on farms.  Even workers  working in  the factory where chemicals  are manufactured  bring the  pesticide dust home on their clothes and they poison the family as well. In July 1975  the Allied  chemical  Company  paid  millions  in damage suits  and the  plant was  shut down.  No  amount  of compensation paid  in cash  could make  the  people  healthy again.  People   can  avoid   exposure  to  large  doses  of insecticides but  it is  impossible  to  avoid  exposure  to contaminants in  food, in  the air  and in  drinking  water. Scientists in  their  anxiety  to  increase  the  production capacity of  the soil and to prevent the food particles from various pests and insects have invented several insecticides which has caused deleterious effect on the human health. The broad spectrum  pesticides have  serious flaws.  They  upset ecosystem, poison  people  and  animal  and  possibly  cause cancer. on  the basis  of continued  research in  the  field several other  advance countries  whereas  in  a  developing country, like  India, no  effective measures have been taken so far while examining the affidavits filed in this court by different Ministries  of the Government of India to find out what effective  steps have  been banned  in other  countries particularly when its deleterious effect on the human health is alarming,  One thing  is absolutely  clear that  in  this country there  has not  been much  study and research on the harmful effect  of several  such chemicals  and  pesticides. There  is  no  coordinated  organisation  and  the  lack  of coordination between  different ministries of the government who deal  with different  chemicals and  pesticides make the people of  this country  suffer. It may be true that several such insecticides  and chemicals  may be required in certain contingency when epidemics like Plague and dengue break. But that cannot  be ground  for allowing  the industrialists  to manufacturer such  commodity when it is established that the use of  the commodity  is grossly  detrimental to  the human health. Take  for example an insecticide called DDT. It acts as a  nerve poison.  Paralyzing insects. It has been used to control insects  which destroy  food and forage crops and to kill disease carrying insects, such as mosquitoes that carry malaria and  yellow fever and lice that carry typhus. DDT is a residual  poison  that  retains  its  effectiveness  in  a sprayed area  for weeks, although it may persist in the area for years.  It is  harmless to most plants. The chemical was first prepared by Oothmar Zeidler, a German chemist in 1874. Its effectiveness  was discovered  and recognised by a Swiss scientist Paul  Hermann Muller  who won  the Noble  prize in 1984. it  was used  heavily in world War II, particularly in the mid  and South-pacific  theaters  by  spraying  mosquito infected areas  prior to  invasion and occupation. The spray program  continued   after  the   war  and   was   primarily responsible for  eliminating malaria  and  yellow  fever  as major diseases.  The said  chemical, however,  is  toxic  to people and  animals. it accumulates in the bodies of animals that  eat   food  contaminated   with  the  substance.  When dissolved in  organic solvents.  DDT can be absorbed through the skin.  The chemical  nature of  DDT is  not  changed  by process of  metabolism, soil microorganisms or sun-light. It is dangerous  to birds,  to fish  and other forms of aquatic life, Because  of its  potential danger  to human health and its possible  effect on  several species  its use  has  been totally banned  in the  United  States  of  America  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

Environmental Protection  Agency since 1972. Soon thereafter the said  insecticide has  been   banned  in  several  other countries including  Canada, Sweden  and Denmark, But so far as India  is concerned. It is now being produced only by M/s Hindustan insecticides  Limited and  the Director General of Health services  on getting  information about  the quantity required  by  respective  States  for  their  Public  health Programme puts  it before the requirement Committee and only on the approval of the said Committee it is manufactured and sent to  different States. Thus though it has not been fully banned but  its manufacture  and use has been controlled. We have taken  the illustration  with respect  to  one  of  the insecticides only for the purpose of indicating that several insecticides  which   have  been   banned  in  the  advanced countries like  America are still being permitted to be used in this country possibly because of certain necessity.      Agriculture was  the principal activity of Indians till Nineteenth Century and more than seventy per cent population were dependent  on agriculture  for their livelihood. In the twentieth Century the Country saw industrial revolution. The rural population  started migrating  from villages  to urban and industrial towns. but yet agriculture holds the dominant position in Indian economy. The growing realisation of acute problem of  population explosion  in India  necessitated the policy makers, planners to make vigorous efforts to optimise agricultural production.  The idea  of green  revolution was floated and  effective steps  were taken  to  machanise  the agricultural  process   and  to   modernise  it   by   using fertilizers and spray in pesticides in order to achieve self sufficiency in  food  grains,  commercial  crops  and  other agricultural products.  It was realised that endeavor should be made  on war  footing to boost agricultural production so as to  fulfil  the  requirement  of  food  for  our  teeming millions.  One  of  the  hurdles  in  boosting  agricultural production was  excessive loss  and destruction of crops and foodgrains by insects and pests. A need was, therefore, felt to import  and manufacture  insecticides and  pesticides  to protect crops  and plants  from  the  damage  of  pests  and insects. But  the most  dangerous crisis  in the present day modern world  is that  of global  atmospheric pollution. The eco system  has become imbalanced by uncontrolled use. abuse and misuse  of natural  resources and manufacture and use of hazardous products  and chemicals  resulting in  endangering the very  existence of  human race.  The  excessive  use  of chemicals  and   pesticides  for   optimising   agricultural production created  alarming danger  to health and safety of living  beings   in  general   and  agriculture  workers  in particular.  The   impact  of   pesticides  use   on  global environment may  vary in magnitude and exhibits a variety of behavioural patterns  and modes of action. Pesticides affect man’s ecosystem  and their  residues can  get into  the food chain. The amount of pesticide consumed by people depends on the manner  of usage  of  pesticides  particularly  on  farm crops, storage of the produce and its processing. In most of the developed  countries  the  use  of  hard  pesticides  on agricultural crops  has been either banned or restricted and other pest  control  programmes  are  adopted  in  order  to maintain eco-system.  But the developing countries are still using these  pesticides without  caring for side effects  on environment. In  recent times the Central Government has set up the  pesticides Environment  pollution Advisory committee in the  Ministry of  Agriculture to review from time to time the environmental  repercussion  and  to  suggest  measures. Whenever necessary.  It is a fact that pesticides considered hazardous in rich countries of the developing countries lack

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

scientific facilities for toxicological scrutiny as also for making proper  cost assessment.  It is  true that  different countries  may   have  different   requirements  but  it  is difficult and  dangerous to assume that pesticides banned or restricted in  USA  or  other  European  countries  will  be acceptable in the Third World countries. In India pesticides are use  over the  past four decades for crop protection and control of diseases like malaria. There has been much debate over the use of pesticides at the cost to weigh the benefits of use of pesticides and the adverse effect that is produced on human health on account of such use of pesticides.      Right to  Life enshrined  in Article  21 means right to have something  more than survival and not mere existence or animal existence.  It includes  all those  aspects  of  life which go  to make  a man’s  life meaningful  , complete  and worth living.  As has  been stated  by this  court in Maneka Gandhi’s case  (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, in the case of Board  of Trustees vs. Dilip (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 124 and  in the  case of  Ramasharan vs. Union of India 1989 Supp. (1) Supreme court Cases 251, that it would include all that gives  meaning  to  a  man’s  life,  for  example,  his tradition, culture, heritage and protection of that heritage in its  full measure.  In still  recent cases this Court has given liberal  interpretation to  the word ’life’ in Article 21. And  in the  case M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & others (1987) 4 supreme Court Cases 463 while dealing with a public Interest petition  relating to  Ganga Water  Pollution  this Court has observed that life, public health and ecology have priority over  problems of unemployment and loss of revenue. In the  United Nations  Conference on  the Human Environment held at  Stockholm in 1972 it was stated that the protection and improvement  of human environment is a major issue which affects the  well-being of  people and  economic development through out  the world  and it  is the  urgent desire of the people of  whole world  and the  duty of all Governments. It was also stated:-      "  A  point  has  been  reached  in      history  when  we  must  shape  our      actions throughout the world with a      more   prudent   care   for   their      environmental consequences. Through      ignorance or  indifference   we can      do massive and irreversible harm to      the earthly  environment  on  which      our life  and  well  being  depend.      Conversely,     through      fuller      knowledge and  wiser action, we can      achieve  for   ourselves  and   our      posterity  a   better  life  in  an      environment more  in  keeping  with      human needs  and hopes.  There  are      broad vistas for the enhancement of      environmental   quality   and   the      creation of  a good  life. What  is      needed is  an enthusiastic but calm      state  of   mind  and  intense  but      orderly work.  for the  purpose  of      attaining freedom  in the  world of      nature  a  better  environment.  To      defend  and   improve   the   human      environment for  present and future      generations    has     become    an      imperative goad  for mankind a goal      to be pursued together with, and in      harmony with,  the established  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

    fundamental goals  of peace  and of      world-wide  economic   and   social      development."      What  has   been  stated   above  in  relation  to  the environmental hazards  would apply  with much  greater force when it  comes to  health hazards.  By  giving  an  extended meaning to  expression ’life’  in Article  21 this court has brought health  hazards due  to pollution  within it  and so also the  health hazards  from use  of harmful drugs. In the case of Vincent  Panikuriangara vs. Union of India, 1987 (2) SCC 165,  on a  public Interest  Petition seeking directions from  this  Court  to  ban  import,  manufacture,  sale  and distribution of  certain drugs  this Court  had observed  ’A healthy body is the very foundation for all human activities and in  a welfare state it is the obligation of the state to ensure  the   creation  and  the  sustaining  of  conditions congenial to  good health’ . The Court in the aforesaid case extracted a  passage from  the earlier  judgment in  Bandhua Munti Morcha  vs. Union  of India  1984 (3)  SCC 161,  which would be profitable to extract herein:-      " It  is the  fundamental right  of      everyone in  this Country,  assured      under the  interpretation given  to      Arty. 21  by this court in Farancis      Mullin’s case  (1981) 1 SCC 608  to      live with  human dignity, free from      exploitation. This  right  to  live      with  human  dignity  enshrined  in      Art.21 derives its life breath from      the Directive  principles of  State      Policy and  Particularly  cls.  (e)      and (f) of Art. 39 and Arts. 41 and      42 and  at the least, therefore, it      must  include   protection  of  the      health and strength of the workers,      men and  women, and  of the  tender      age  of   children  against  abuse,      opportunities  an   facilities  for      children to  develop in  a  healthy      manner and in conditions of freedom      and      dignity,       educational      facilities.   just    as    huamane      conditions  of  work  an  maternity      relief.  These   are  the   minimum      requirements which  must  exist  in      order to  enable a  person to  live      with human  dignity. and  no  state      neither the  central Government has      the right  to take any action which      will  deprive   a  person   of  the      enjoyment    of     these     basic      essentials".      It was further observed:      " The  branch with which we are now      dealing, namely,  healthy  care  of      citizens, is a problem with various      facets.  It   involves   an   ever-      changing challenge.  There  appears      to  be,  as  it  were,  a  constant      competition between  nature  (which      can be  said to  be responsible for      new ailments) on one side and human      ingenuity engaged  in  research and      finding  out   curative  processes.      This  being   the  situation,   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

    problem has  an evershifting  base.      It  is  commonplace  that  what  is      considered to  be the best medicine      today for treatment of a particular      disease becomes  out  of  date  and      soon goes  out of  the market  with      discovery  or   invention  of   new      drugs. Again  what is considered to      be incurable  at any given point of      time becomes subjected to treatment      and cure  with new  finds. There is      yet another situation which must be      taken note  of as  human  knowledge      expands and marches ahead. With the      onward   march   of   science   and      complexities of  the living process      hitherto   unknown   diseases   are      noticed. To  meet  new  challenges,      new drugs have to be found. In this      field, therefore, change appears to      be the rule."      It is  necessary to examine the present problem arising out of  use of  pesticides  and  other  chemicals  which  on account of  its adverse  effects on human health has already been banned  in other  advanced countries.  On examining the counter-affidavits  filed   on    behalf  of  the  different Ministries of  the Government  it appears  to us that though sufficient steps  have been  taken to either ban or to allow restrictive use  of these  insecticides but  yet there is no co-ordinated  effort   and  different   Ministries  of   the Government of India are involved. It also further transpires that there has been no continuous effort to have research or to have minimum information about the adverse effects of the use of  such pesticides  and other  chemicals as a result of which people  at large  of this  country suffer  to a  great extent. As  it is  on account  of lack  of capacity  of  the people of  the country  to afford  good and nutritious food. the average  standard of  human  health  is  much  below  as compared to other advanced countries. In addition to that it insecticides and  chemicals are  permitted to be freely used in  protecting   the  foodgrains   and  in   increasing  the agricultural production then that  will bring insarmountable hazards to  all those  country-men   who consume  those food articles. To  check these maladies what is essential for the Government of  India is to have a co-ordinated and sustained effort. In  this age of computerisation and inter-linking of the countries  through internet it does not take more than a couple of  minutes to  gather the  necessary information  in respect o  f any particular insecticide or pesticide and how such commodities  have been  dealt with  in  other  advanced countries. What is really essential is a genuine will on the part of  the Administrative machinery and a conjoined effort of all  the  ministries  concerned.  on  the  basis  of  the affidavits filed  while we  are satisfied that the different measures  taken   by  the   Central  Government  in  totally prohibiting in  some other  cases are adequate step from the health hazards  point of  view and  no further  direction is necessary to  be issued  in  respect  of  the  40  items  of insecticides and chemicals identified in the petition filed. but we would direct that a Committee of Four senior officers from  the  four  different  Ministries  involved  should  be constituted  which   committee  should   have  deliberations atleast once  in three  months and take suitable measures in future in  respect of  any other  insecticides and chemicals which is  found to be hazardous for health. Such a Committee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

should be  constituted by  the Cabinet  Secretary within two months from the date of the order and the said Committee may take the  assistance of such technical experts as they think appropriate.      We would accordingly dispose of this Writ petition with the aforesaid observation.      In the  two Transferred  Cases. the  notification  date 1.1.1996 of  the Central  Government issued  in exercise  of powers  under   sub-section  (2)   of  section   27  of  the Insecticides  Act,   1968  phasing   out  progressively  the manufacture and  use of  Benzene Hexachloride  and directing that the  certificate of  Registration in respect of Benzene Hexachloride issued to various firms shall be deemed to have been cancelled w.e.f 1st of April, 1997, has been challenged by the  manufacturers inter  alia on  the ground  that it is beyond the  scope and powers of the Central Government under Section  27(2)   of  the  Insecticides  Act  to  issue  such Notification.      It is  contended by  Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan,  the learned senior counsel  for the  petitioner -M/S.  Kanoria Chemicals and Industries  Ltd. as  well as  MR.  Jayant  Das,  learned senior counsel  appearing for  the petitioner  in the  other Transferred  Case   that  consultation   with   Registration Committee being  mandatory for  exercise of power under Sub- Section  (2) of  Section 27(2) of the Act and there being no such  consultation   with  the  Registration  Committee  the issuance of  the impugned Notification in purported exercise of power  under section 27 (2) of the Act is vitiated and as such is  liable to  be stuck  down. It  is further contended that neither  there has been any investigation of its own by the Central Government nor the Central Government could have been satisfied  about the insecticides in question is likely to cause  any risk which would enable the Central Government could have been satisfied about the insecticides in question is likely  to cause  any risk which would enable the Central Government to  cancel the  certificate of  Registration  and therefore. the inpugned Notification is invalid In law since the satisfaction  is based upon non-existent material and as such the  notification in  question is  liable to  be struck down .  Lastly, it  is contended  that in  exercise of power under sub-section  (2) of  section  27  the  certificate  of Registration of  any   insecticide specified  in  sub-clause (iii) of  clause (e)  of section  3 or  any  specific  batch thereof can be cancelled it the Central Government is of the opinion for  reasons to  be recorded in writing that the use of the  said insecticide  is likely  to involve such risk to human beings  or animals  so as  to render  it expedient  or necessary to  take immediate  action. Section  3  (e)  (iii) deals with  a preparation  containing any one or more of the substances specified  in  the  Schedule.,  The  said  power, therefore, cannot  be exercised  in respect to any substance specified in the schedule which in an insecticide within the meaning of section 3(e) (i). Benzene Hexachlordide being one of the  substances in  the  Schedule  issued  under  Section 3(e)(iii), and  not a preparation containing any one or more of the  substances as  provided in  section  3(e)(iii),  the Central Government had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Notification in  purported exercise  of power  under section 27(2) of   the  Insecticides Act.  In other  words, what  is contended  by   the  counsel   for  the   petitioners  these Transferred cases  is the  power to  prohibit or  cancel the registration under  section 27(2)  is in  respect  of  those preparations containing  any one  or more of such substances which are  specified in  the Schedule  and which is consumer oriented ant  the said  power cannot be exercised in respect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

of any  substance included in the Schedule by the parliament itself. Mr.  Bhat. learned  Addl. Solicitor  General, on the other hand  contended that  in construing  the provisions of the insecticides  Act the  Court must  adopt a  construction which would effectuate the objects of the statute instead of adopting a  construction which  would  defeat  its  objects. According to  t he learned Addl. Solicitor General a statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a court  should be  to secure  that object,  unless  crucial omission or  clear direction makes that end unattainable, as was observed  by Lord Dunedin in whitney v. Commissioners of inland Revenue  (1925) 10  Tax  Cas.  88.110  and  was  also accepted by  Craies on Statute Law  as well as by Maxwell on The Interpretation  of Statutes,  Tenth Edn., and bearing in mind the aforesaid principle the provisions of Section 27 of the Insecticides Act are to be construed,      According to  the learned  Addl. Solicitor  General the courts should  lean against  any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility and the provisions of a statute must be  so construed as to make it effective and operative, on the  principle "ut  res majis  valeat quam  periat".  The learned counsel  urged that  it is  the court’s duty to make what it  can of  the Statute,  knowing that the Statutes are meant to  be operative  and not inept and that nothing short of impossibility  should allow  a Court to declare a Statute unworkable. The  learned Addl.  Solicitor  General  contends that the  Insecticides Act  having been  enacted to retulate the import,  manufacture, sale,  transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent any risk to human beings or  animals and  the Central  Government having  been satisfied that  the use  of  Benzene  Hexachloride  involves great risk  to the  human life.  and on  being so  satisfied having issued  the impugned  Notification  phasing  out  the manufacture of  such insecticide  an completely  prohibiting the same  w.e.f. 1.4.1997,  this court  should not set aside the Notification  by interpreting  the provisions of the Act which would have the effect of frustrating the object of the legislation itself.  According to the learned Addl Solicitor General no  doubt the  words  used  in  sub-section  (2)  of section 27  are not  very clear  but the  expression "  as a result of  its own  investigation"  in  sub-section  (2)  of Section 27  does not  necessarily refer  to  an  insecticide specified in  sub-clause (iii) of Clause (e) of Section 3 as engrafted in  sub-section (1) of Section 27 and on the other hand it  is wide  enough to  include any  insecticide  under Section 3(e) including a substance specified in the Schedule and such  a construction  alone would subserve the object of the Act. The learned Addl. Solicitor General also urged that when  the   power  under   sub-section  (2)  of  Section  27 authorises the Central Government to issue an order refusing to register the insecticide it would obviously mean that the said power could be exercised even prior to the registration of the  insecticide in  question, whereas  the  power  under Section 27(1)  can be exercised only after an insecticide in question, whereas  the power  under  Section  27(1)  can  be exercised only after an insecticide has been registered and, therefore. Section  27(2)  does  not  necessarily  refer  to section 27(1)  as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the  petitioner. So  far as  the  question  of  lack  of consultation with  the Registration  Committee is concerned, the learned  Addl.  Solicitor  General  contended  that  the Notification  which  was  issued  in  December  1994  itself indicates that  the Central  Government had due consultation with the  Registration Committee  and as  such  it  was  not necessary  to   have  further  consultation  with  the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

Committee before issuance of Notification on 1st of January, 1996. According  to the learned Addl. Solicitor General when Benzene Hexachloride  has already  been  banned  in  several other countries  in the  world because  of its effect on the human life,  the Central  Government has  totally banned its production w.e.f.  31st of  March, 1997,  having decided  to phase out the production progressively and any intereference with the said order will be against the society at large.      Before examining  rival contentions  with regard to the power of  the Central  Government under the insecticides Act to  cancel   Certificate  of   Registration  it   would   be appropriate for  us to  find  out  as  to  what  is  Benzene Hexachloride and what are its effect on the human beings and the environment  and to  what extent  it has  actually  been banned in other countries.      Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) is formed by the reaction of chlorine with  benzene in  the presence of light. It is also called 1,  2, 3, 4, 5, 6- HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, namely, any one of  several isometic  compounds: one of these isomers is an insecticide  called Gammexane.  It was  first prepared in 1825 and the insecticidal properties were identified in 1944 with the  y-isomer, which  is about  1,000 times more toxics than any  of the  other isomers  formed in the reaction. The chemical addition  of chlorine to benzene produces a mixture containing at  least six  of the  eight possible  isomers of BHC. BHC  has a  faster  but  less  protracted  action  upon insects. It  use  had  declined  by  the  1960s  because  of competition from  other  insecticides  and  its  effects  on fishes. (See  - The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Volume 2, Page - 115).      Benzene Hexachloride,  otherwise known  as  BHC  is  an insecticide specified  in the  Schedule to  the  insecticide Act, 1968 and is different from its formulations which would also  be  an  insecticide  within  the  meaning  of  Section 3(e)(iii) of  the said  Insecticides Act. BHC is not used as such by farmer or consumer though its different formulations or preparations  containing different  concentrations of BHC are  use  in  agricultural  pest  control,  crop  protection operation as  well  as  in  public  health  for  control  of diseases like  malaria, dengu  and plague.  In the  Tripathi Committee  Report   which  was  constituted  to  review  the continued use  of DDT and BHC in the country in the light of their hazard to human health and environment pursuant to the earlier observations  of the  Banerjee Committee  Report  in 1986, it has been stated as follows:      1. In  a large  number of countries      the   use    of   BHC    has   been      banned/withdrawn    or     severely      restricted    mainly     due     to      bioaccumulation of  residue and its      associated environmental hazards.      2. BHC is bioeffective against pest      complex of rice, sugarcane, sorghum      and pigeonpea.  Its dust  has  also      been proved bioeffective for locust      control.      3.  It   still  continues   to   be      effective in controlling vectors of      malaria.      4. The  residue of  BHC in  soil of      USA persists  as long as ten years.      However,   in   other   comparative      studies between  1977 and  1988 the      residue  has  been  decreased  from      5.64  ppm   to  0.06   ppm  against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

    studies of Indian soils has shown a      half life of only 4 months.      5. Residues  of BHC  in water  were      found in  a range  of 1.07 to 81.23      mg/litre,  in   studies   conducted      during 1985  to 1987.  Ganga  water      was  reported  to  be  contaminated      with BHC  residue in  the range  of      2.5  to   639  nanogram  per  litre      during 1986 to 1989k.      6. Reported  quantum  of  17.66  to      40.90 ppm  of residues  in rice  is      highest  and   for   potatoes   the      quantities  were   below  tolerance      limit. It  is low in rabi crops and      nil in sugarcane.      7.  Residue   of  BHC   in   Indian      Vegetable found  to be  higher than      permissible limit  as per PFA (8.0)      PPM)      8. The  residue of BHC in vegetable      oils and  oilseeds  ranged  between      0.2 to  6.2  ppm,  which  showed  a      declining trend.      9.  Milk   and  milk  products  are      contaminated with residues of BHC.      10. Meat, chicken, fish and egg are      also contaminated with BHC residue.      11.   There    are    reports    of      accumulation  of  BHC  residues  in      human adipose tissue and blood.      12. Animal  feed as  well as animal      products do  contain  BHC  residues      and there is an increasing trend.      13.  Sub-chronic   and  long   term      toxicity studies  show  storage  of      BHC    in    body    tissues    and      steroidiogenic inhibition.      14.   Studies    on    reproduction      indicates     its     effect     on      reproduction  leading  to  impaired      reproductive function.      15. In some studies BHC is found to      be mutagenic.      16.  BHC   has  been  shown  to  be      carcinogenic to  mice and  rats  in      one study  and in  mice in  another      two studies.  But it has been shown      not to  be carcinogenic to rats and      hamstars in one study. BHC has been      classified by  IARC into  Group 2 B      i.e.   probable   carcinogenic   to      human.      17. BHC  has been  shown to produce      immunological changes.      18.  In  human  studies  accidental      long term  dietary exposure  of BHC      resulted in  epidemic of porphyria,      hyper       pigmentation        and      neurotoxicity.      Thus, though  it is  of great use in control of malaria but  its   adverse  effect   on  human  health  is  no  less particularly when it has already shown to be caioinogenic to mice and rats and even scientists are of the opinion that it is probable carcinogenic to human beings. The Certificate of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

Registration granted  in favour  of  petitioners  which  are available on  record indicates  that is  was for formulation namely BHC  10% DP,  BHC 50%  WP as  well as  BHC technical. Coming to  the question  of power  of the Central Government under the  Insecticides Act  and  rival  contention  of  the parties in  this Court  as  noticed  earlier,  it  would  be appropriate for  us to  notice some of the provisions of the Act.      Section 3(e) defines ’insecticide’ to mean that:      3(e): " insecticide" means :-      (i) any  substance specified in the      schedule : or      (ii)    such    other    substances      (including      fungicides      and      weedicides)    as    the    Central      Government may,  after consultation      with the  Board. by notification in      the official  Gazette.  include  in      the Schedule from time to time; or      (iii)  any  preparation  containing      any one or more of such substances;      Section 4 contemplates constitution      of   a    Board   called    Central      Insecticides Board whose duty is to      advise the  Central Government  and      the State  Government on  technical      matters   arising    out   of   the      administration of  the Act  as well      as to carry out the other functions      assigned to  the  Board  under  the      Act,    Section     5    stipulates      constitution  of   a   Registration      Committee   which    Committee   is      empowered  to   regulate  its   own      procedure for  conduct of  business      to be  transacted by  it. Section 9      provides   for    registration   of      insecticides. Under sub-section (1)      of section  9 a  person desirous of      importing  or   manufacturing   any      insecticide is  required to make an      application  to   the  Registration      Committee for  the Registration  of      such insecticide. Under sub-section      (1)  of section 9 a person desirous      of importing  or manufacturing  any      insecticide is  required to make an      application  to   the  Registration      Committee for  the registration  of      such insecticide. Under sub-section      (3) of  Section 9  the Registration      Committee is  required to hold such      enquiry as  it  deems  fit  and  on      being satisfied  about the efficacy      and safety  of the  insecticide  to      human beings  and animals  register      the same.  Second proviso  to  sub-      section (3)  of section  9  confers      power on the Committee to refuse to      register the  insecticide.  Section      10 provides  for an  appeal against      the decision  of  the  Registration      Committee to the Central Government      against  non-registration.  Section      11 is  the sub  moto power  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

    Central Government  in exercise  of      which power the Government can call      for the  record of the Registration      Committee in  respect of  any  case      for  the   purpose  of   satisfying      itself  as   to  the   legality  or      propriety of  the of  the decision.      Section 13  is the  power to  grant      licence and  any person desirous of      manufacturing   or    selling    or      exhibiting for sale or distributing      any insecticide  is bound to have a      licence under  Section 13.  Section      14 is  the power  of the  licensing      officer to revoke. suspend or amend      the licence  issued  under  Section      13. Section  17 is  the prohibition      for import  as well  as manufacture      of certain insecticides. Section 26      is   the   power   of   the   state      Government to require any person or      class   of    persons   to   report      occurence of poisioning through the      use or  handling of any insecticide      coming   within   his   cognizance.      Section 27  the  interpretation  of      which    comes     up    for    our      consideration in  the case  in hand      contains the  power of  the Central      Government in purported exercise of      which  the  impugned  notifications      have been  issued. Since  the  same      provision       requires        the      consideration  of  this  Court  the      same is  extracted  hereinbelow  in      extenso:      27.  Prohibition   sale.  etc.   of      insecticides for  reasons of public      safety.-(1)  If  on  receipt  of  a      report   under    section   26   or      otherwise, the  Central  Government      or  the   State  Government  is  of      opinion, for reasons to be recorded      in writing,  that the  use  of  any      insecticide specified in sub-clause      (ii) of  clause (e) of section 3 or      any  specific   batch  thereof   is      likely  to  involve  such  risk  to      human  beings   or  animals  as  to      render it expedient or necessary to      take  immediate  action  than  that      Government may,  by notification in      the official  Gazette, prohibit the      sale, distribution  or use  of  the      insecticide or batch. In such area,      to such extend and such period (not      exceeding sixty  days)  as  may  be      specified   in   the   notification      pending  investigation   into   the      matter:      Provided     that     where     the      investigation  is   not   completed      within the said period. the central      Government or the State Government,      as the case my be, may extend it by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

    such further  period or periods not      exceed  in   thirty  days   in  the      aggregate  as  it  may  specify  in      alike manner.      (2) If,  as a  result  of  its  own      investigation or  on receipt of the      report from  the state  Government.      and  after  consultation  with  the      Registration Committee. the Central      Government, is  satisfied that  the      use  of  the  said  insecticide  or      batch is  or is not likely to cause      any such  risk, it  may  pass  such      order (including  an order refusing      to  register   the  insecticide  or      cancelling   the   certificate   of      registration, if  any,  granted  in      respect thereof),  as it deems fit,      depending on  the circumstances  of      the case."      Section 36  is the  rule making  power of  the  Central Government.      An examination  of the  aforesaid provisions of the Act indicates that  before registering  a particular insecticide the Registration  Committee  is  duty  bound  to  hold  such enquiry as  it deems  fit for  satisfying  itself  that  the insecticide to  which the  application relates  is  safe  to human beings  and animals.  Coming now  to the core question namely whether  under Section  27 of  the  Act  the  central Government can  cancel the  Certificate of  Registration  in respect of  an insecticide. It appears to us that under sub- section (1) of section 27 when the Central Government or the State Government  is of  the opinion  that the  use  of  any insecticide specified  in sub-clause  (iii) of clause (e) of section 3 or any specific batch thereof is likely to involve risk to  human beings or animals and it is necessary to take immediate action  then on  recording reasons  in writing the sale. distribution or use of the insecticide or batch can be prohibited in  such area.  to such  extent not  exceeding 60 days  as  may  be  specified  in  the  notification  pending investigation into  the matter. In other words, In respect o an insecticide  within the  meaning of  section 3(e)  ((iii) i.e. a preparation or formulation  containing anyone or more of  such   substances  specified     in  the  schedule.  the appropriate  Government   can  immediately   by   issue   of notification prohibit  the sale.  distribution or use of the same pending  investigation. Under the proviso to subsection (1) of  section 27.  if the  investigation is  not completed within the  period  of  60  days  then  the  prohibition  in question could  be extended  for  such  further  period  not exceeding 30 days in the aggregate. Under sub-section (2) if the Central Government on the basis of its own investigation or on  receipt of  the report  from the state Government and after  consultation   with  the  Registration  Committee  is satisfied that  the use  of the said insecticide or batch is or is  not likely  to cause  any such  risk then it may pass such order  as it deems fit depending upon the circumstances of the  case. either refusing to register the insecticide or cancel the  Certificate of Registration. If already granted. The use  of the  word said  insecticide in  sub-section  (2) obviously refers  to the  insecticide in  question which was the subject  matter of  consideration under  sub-section (1) and in  respect of  which pending further investigation into the matter  the Central  Government   has already  issued  a prohibition for sale, distribution or use of the insecticide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

in  question.   Therefore,  the  power  of  cancellation  of Certificate  of  Registration  conferred  upon  the  Central Government under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  27  can  be exercised only  in respect  of any  insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii)    of  clause  (e)  of  section  3  i.e.  a preparation or  formulation of one or more of the substances specified in  the schedule  but the  said  power  cannot  be exercised in respect of an insecticide which is specified in the schedule  itself by  the Parliament.  We are  unable  to accept the  agreements advanced  by the  learned  Additional Solicitor General  that sub-section (2) of section 27 is not restricted to an insecticide in respect of which the Central Government has already issued a notification prohibiting the sale. distribution  or use  pending investigation  into  the matter. The Scheme of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is also an insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e) (iii) the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and pending  investigation   into  the  matter  can  immediately prohibit  sale.   distribution  or  use  and  after  further investigation can  cancel the Certificate of Registration in respect thereof  under sub-section  (2) of  Section 27. That being the  position in  exercise of  such power  under  sub- section (2)  of section  27 a certificate of Registration in respect of  an insecticide under sub-section 3(e) (i) cannot be cancelled  under sub-section  (2) of  section 27. This is also in  consonance with the logic that an insecticide which is the  formulation of  any one  or more  of the  substances specified in  the schedule and is consumer oriented power of cancellation of  registration certainly  has been  conferred upon the central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does  not come  to  a  consumer  and  is  a  substance specified  in   the  schedule   itself  and   therefore   an insecticide under  section 3(e)  (i), the power has not been conferred upon  the Central  Government since  the specified substance  in   the  schedule  has  been  specified  by  the Parliament itself.  In view  of the  aforesaid conclusion of ours we  would  hold  that  those  of  the  Certificates  of Registration granted  to the  petitioner in  respect of  any formulations namely  BHC 10%  WP, the  order of  the Central Government cancelling  Certificate of  Registration is  well within the  jurisdiction and  there is no legal infirmity in the same.  But in  respect of  Benzene Hexachloride which is one of  the substances specified in the schedule and as such is an  insecticide within  the meaning  of section  3 (e)(i) there is  no power  with the  Central Government  under sub- section (2)  of section  27 to  cancel  the  Certificate  of Registration.      So far  as the  contention  of  Mr.  Vaidyanathan,  the learned senior  counsel appearing for the petitioners in the transferred case  that consultation  with  the  Registration committee is  a pre-condition  for exercise  of power  under sub-section (2)  and such  consultation being not there. the issuance of  notification is  bad we  are of  the considered opinion that  undoubtedly before the power under sub-section (2) of section 27 can be exercised the central Government is duty  bound  to  have  consultation  with  the  Registration Committee. But  in the  case in  hand  having  examined  the counter-affidavits  filed   on  behalf   of  the   different Ministries of the Central Government that there has been due and substantial consultation with the Registration Committee which is  apparent in  the  notification  of  December  1994 itself. and since then there has been further study into the matter and  committees of  experts have been constituted who have gone  into the  matter and  on the basis of the reports

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

submitted by  such expert  committee ultimately  the Central Government has  taken the final decision. It is not possible for us  to hold that there has been no consultation with the Registration Committee before exercising of power under sub- section (2)  of section  27. Contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan. the learned  senior counsel on this score. therefor, must be rejected. Before we part with this case. and having examined the different  provisions of  the Insecticides  Act. 1968 we find that  once a  substance is specified in the schedule as contemplated under  Section 3(e)(i)  then there  is no power for  cancelling   the  registration  certificate  issued  in respect of the same substance even if on scientific study it appears  that   the  substance   in  question   is   grossly detrimental to  the human  health. This  is a  lacuna in the legislation itself. and therefore, steps should be taken for appropriate amendment to the legislation. In the net result, therefore,  writ   petition  is   disposed   of   with   the observations made  earlier and  the  transferred  cases  are allowed to  the extent  indicated above.  There will  be  no order as to costs.