Worse than homicide? Why NGT says environmental neglect is ‘serious crime’ against future generations

The NGT said that promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. (Image enhanced using AI)

Larger concern: Public health

• The state has to “forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.
• Article 21 protects the right to life as a fundamental right.
• Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed.
• Any contrary acts or actions would cause environmental pollution.
• A hygienic environment is an integral facet of the right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment.
• Environmental protection has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence.
• Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment.
• There is a constitutional imperative on the Central government, state governments and bodies like municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment.
• The governments also have an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve the man-made environment and natural environment.
• Irreversible degradation of the environment is bound to result in avoidable deaths and diseases and loss of scarce and good quality water, air and soil and biodiversity.

Biomedical waste: Silent hazard

• The case also brought into focus the practical realities of biomedical waste management.
• Hospitals generate infectious waste including blood-soaked bandages, body parts, syringes, laboratory waste and contaminated plastics that must be segregated, transported and treated within 48 hours under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
• The NGT took note of guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which mandate GPS-enabled transport vehicles, bar-code tracking systems, continuous emission monitoring for incinerators and strict buffer-zone norms for CBWTF locations.
• Improper handling can lead to groundwater contamination, spread of hepatitis and HIV, and occupational hazards for sanitation workers and rag pickers.
• The board highlighted that post-COVID expansion of healthcare facilities has increased bed strength and waste generation, requiring closer regulatory scrutiny.

2006 facility that never stabilised

• The applicant, M/s Medical Pollution Disposal Committee, a society registered in 2001, established its CBWTF at village Dumduma, tehsil Karera, district Shivpuri, in 2006.
• It received authorisation in May 2007 under the Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998.
• However, what followed was a turbulent phase.
• A land dispute at the project site halted operations.
• The plant briefly resumed in early 2008, only to face alleged damage by local villagers.
• Police complaints were filed, and the facility again shut down.
• During this period, the MPPCB permitted the applicant to transport biomedical waste to its Jhansi facility for treatment.
• Years later, when the applicant attempted to regularise and revive operations by filing a fresh Consent to Establish (CTE) application in 2018, the MPPCB rejected it in October 2019.
• The board cited the absence of prior environmental clearance (EC) under the amended Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
• Following this, the applicant approached the NGT seeking restoration of its online credentials to reapply for consent.
• Also Read | Why NGT wants Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan to follow Chhattisgarh’s ‘wetland mitra’ model
• Capacity surplus, yet gaps remain
• The NGT referred to findings from a high-level committee constituted in another matter.
• The committee reported that Madhya Pradesh currently has 18 operational CBWTFs covering 52 districts, generating approximately 15.64 metric tonnes of biomedical waste per day.
• The treatment capacity, however, stands at 62 metric tonnes per day, nearly four times the present generation.
• Despite this apparent surplus, the committee found shortcomings in collection systems, particularly in rural and remote areas.
• It recommended strengthening transportation networks, eliminating deep burial practices, implementing centralized bar-code tracking and ensuring coverage of smaller healthcare facilities.

Core legal dispute: EC mandatory?

• Advocate Sachin Kumar Verma, appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the facility was established and briefly operational in 2007, it should not be forced to obtain prior EC now.
• The counsel relied on a 2017 NGT judgment which held that amendments to the EIA Notification requiring “prior EC” cannot logically apply to projects that were already set up before the amendment.
• “The requirement of prior environmental clearance cannot be imposed retrospectively on a project that was already established,” the counsel argued.

MPPCB: EC compulsory

• Advocate Parul Bhadoria, appearing for the state pollution control board strongly contested this position.
• According to the MPPCB, the 2007 authorisation lapsed because the facility was not established within the stipulated period.
• The counsel maintained that the plant was never continuously operational and therefore cannot claim protection from post-2015 regulatory requirements.
• “The updated legal framework clearly mandates Environmental Clearance in addition to authorisation under the Bio-Medical Waste Rules,” the counsel submitted.
• Post-amendment, it is legally impermissible to grant consent without valid EC, she said.
• The counsel also pointed out that the applicant failed to challenge the 2019 rejection order within the statutory appeal period.