‘Silent biological hazard’: Jharkhand High Court issues slew of directions to enforce biomedical waste rules in 12-year-old PIL

The high court, in its February 26 order, also pointed out that the directions issued are not intended to create new substantive obligations but are confined to facilitating the effective implementation of duties already prescribed under law.

What was the PIL?

• The Jharkhand Human Rights Conference, a registered social welfare entity dedicated to public health and ecological preservation, filed the PIL in 2012, seeking the issuance of appropriate directions to ensure that healthcare institutions across the state strictly adhere to the protocols for the management, handling, and disposal of biomedical waste (BMW).
• The conference also sought consequential directions to prevent the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous biomedical waste in public spaces, thereby safeguarding both public health and the environment.

Court’s directions: Nodal officer, gap analysis

1. The state government should designate a state-level nodal officer for inter-departmental coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the BMW Rules, 2016, within 30 days.
2. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) should maintain and periodically update a district-wise inventory of all healthcare facilities that generate biomedical waste and all authorised common biomedical waste treatment facilities operating within the state.
3. The state pollution control board should upload this order within two weeks on its official website and circulate copies to all authorised common biomedical waste treatment facility operators (CBMWTF) and representatives.
4. The JSPCB should ensure that every healthcare facility holds a valid authorisation and is linked to an authorised treatment facility or approved in-house treatment system.
5. The board, in consultation with the state government, should undertake a state-wide gap analysis within three months to assess treatment capacity, geographical coverage, and infrastructure requirements.
6. The JSPCB should ensure the implementation of bar-coding and digital traceability systems across the chain of generation, collection, transportation, and treatment of biomedical waste, as per the existing rules and guidelines.
7. The responsibility for the collection and transportation of biomedical waste shall rest with the authorised CBMWTF.
8. The JSPCB shall ensure that every health care facility holds a valid authorisation and is linked to an authorised treatment facility or approved in-house treatment system.
9. The board should conduct periodic and surprise inspections of health care facilities and CBMWTFs, and initiate coercive action.
10. The JSPCB should maintain records of authorisations, inspections, and enforcement actions, and compile statutory reports as required by law.
11. The board should develop and maintain a publicly accessible digital dashboard that reflects district-wise compliance status, inspections conducted, and enforcement actions taken.
    Also Read | Worse than homicide? Why NGT says environmental neglect is ‘serious crime’ against future generations
12. The state advisory committee and district-level monitoring committees constituted under the BMW Rules, 2016, shall continue to function in accordance with the statutory framework.
13. The district magistrate should ensure that biomedical waste is not mixed with municipal solid waste within the district and shall periodically review compliance in coordination with the civil surgeon, officials of the JSPCB, and the municipal/urban local body authorities concerned, wherever applicable.
14. The district administration should extend necessary assistance to the JSPCB in inspections, monitoring and enforcement.
15. The district registering authorities should treat compliance with the BMW Rules as a condition for the grant and renewal of registration and shall initiate regulatory action.
16. Healthcare facilities with over 30 beds shall constitute a biomedical waste management committee, and those having fewer beds shall designate a responsible nodal officer.
17. The state health department should conduct periodic training and capacity-building programmes for healthcare facilities and operators.
18. The JSPCB shall establish an accessible grievance redressal mechanism, including an online portal, and maintain records of complaints received and action taken.
19. The JSPCB should undertake a verification exercise within three months to identify instances where CBMWTFs have entered into arrangements beyond their approved operational jurisdiction.
20. All authorities shall maintain records of inspections, notices and enforcement actions to ensure transparency and accountability.
21. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) should ensure that proposals relating to the establishment or expansion of CBMWTF are considered in consultation with the state pollution control board and in accordance with the BMW 2016.

‘Emerging culture of regulatory compliance’

• Biomedical waste management is not merely a matter of regulatory compliance but is intrinsically linked to the protection of public health and the right to a clean and safe environment under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed.
• This PIL and its proceedings have reflected an emerging culture of regulatory compliance concerning biomedical waste, which was largely absent at the inception of these proceedings.
• The accountability mechanisms have been strengthened through periodic inspections and reporting structures mandated during the course of these proceedings.
• The developments noticed during the pendency of these proceedings demonstrate that sustained judicial oversight has contributed to a more responsive and coordinated regulatory framework, advancing public interest in health, sanitation and environmental safety.
• Mere existence of a statutory framework does not, by itself, ensure effective protection of rights unless the authorities entrusted with its implementation discharge their duties in a timely and coordinated manner.

Court slams ‘administrative inertia’

• Despite the existence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing biomedical waste management, the circumstances which led to the initiation and continuation of the present proceedings were rooted in administrative inertia, lack of coordination among authorities, and inadequate enforcement of the existing regulatory regime.
• Biomedical waste consists of materials that are not only potentially infectious but also pose a significant hazard to
• human life and the delicate ecological balance, and are generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunisation of humans and animals, as well as during associated research.
• The handling of biomedical substances demands meticulous oversight and strict adherence to scientific procedures. Any administrative or institutional laxity in this sphere brings grave and irreversible consequences.
• The Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 already prescribe the substantive obligations of occupiers, operators and prescribed authorities.
• A sufficiently robust institutional framework exists for implementation and enforcement. Consequently, the primary responsibility must necessarily rest upon the designated statutory authorities.