Supreme Court refuses to block Union Carbide’s toxic waste transfer to Pithampur, upholds High Court order

“NEERI is the most recognised and reputed organisation in the country dealing with environmental aspects. Whenever the Court finds difficulty in assessing the question with regard to environmental damages, NEERI is always taken on board. The minutes of the Committee reveal that the experts have taken a decision for the transportation and disposal of toxic waste. Views of directors of NEERI, NGRI and the chairman of CPCB have been recorded,” said the bench.

On submissions that some of the recommendations of the Committee were not complied with by the state government, the bench said the High Court had taken “a serious view of the lethargic manner in which the state was dealing with the disposal of waste.”

On December 3, 2024, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set a four-week deadline for authorities to dispose of the toxic waste. The High Court slammed the state government over the lack of progress in disposing of 337 MT of toxic waste, observing that the authorities were “still in a state of inertia despite 40 years”.

The appeal challenging this pointed out that citizens of Pithampur and Indore, located 30 km from the town in the Dhar district, are against the move as the issue was not discussed with them. It also said the state government had not issued any clarification or advisory regarding people’s safety and security.

On February 17, the Supreme Court issued notice to the state government on the plea. On February 18, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a trial run to shift 10 metric tonnes of waste from February 27 onwards.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat pointed out that when measures for disposal of the waste were taken in the past, it was claimed that 11 public representatives had agreed to the measures. But “now those 8 out of 11 come before this Court and say we never gave this consent. This is very serious,” he submitted.

An intervention application by one of these 11 representatives also claimed that no affidavit of consent was filed on his behalf and that the local bodies in the region were never consulted or even represented before the High Court.

The Supreme Court said that all those aggrieved can approach the High Court given that it is monitoring the issue.