Introduction:

In the case of Amit Manibhai Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Others (R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2023), the Gujarat High Court recently heard submissions regarding measures undertaken for sustainable waste management during the Ambaji Padyatra, a large religious pilgrimage that attracts thousands of devotees to the Ambaji Temple in Banaskantha district. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray examined initiatives by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), the State of Gujarat, and municipal corporations to combat the mounting problem of plastic waste during mass gatherings. The matter highlighted a proactive approach by state authorities who distributed reusable steel bottles, installed reverse vending machines, and promoted cloth bags as substitutes for single-use plastics. The Court, while appreciating these efforts, stressed that door-to-door waste collection alone was insufficient for public places and emphasized strict implementation of the “polluter pays” principle to tackle littering in open spaces. The PIL filed by Amit Manibhai Panchal has provided a significant platform for judicial monitoring of compliance with environmental norms, pushing state agencies toward sustainable models of waste segregation, recycling, and recovery.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner in this case approached the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), raising serious concerns about unchecked plastic waste generated during mass pilgrimages such as the Ambaji Padyatra. It was contended that religious festivals and large gatherings result in uncontrolled use of plastic bottles, carry bags, and other disposable materials which not only choke civic amenities but also cause lasting damage to the environment. The petitioner urged that municipal corporations and local authorities had failed to effectively implement waste segregation norms, leaving public areas littered. The plea emphasized that under the constitutional framework and statutory environmental laws, authorities have a duty to ensure proper waste management and to reduce the menace of single-use plastics. The petitioner argued that unless strict measures such as installation of collection machines, imposition of fines for littering, and creation of adequate Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) were enforced, the state would not be able to control the escalating crisis. By invoking the principles of sustainable development and the polluter pays principle, the petitioner sought judicial intervention to compel the State and its agencies to adopt innovative and effective solutions.

Submissions by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board:

During the hearing, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Lav Kumar Shah, apprised the bench of the extensive steps taken during the ongoing Ambaji Padyatra. It was highlighted that GPCB had adopted a series of eco-friendly initiatives to manage plastic waste generated by devotees. Specifically, 21 reverse vending machines had been installed across three major routes covering 370 kilometers, resulting in the collection of 1,35,400 plastic bottles. As part of a behavioral incentive program, the Board distributed 10,000 reusable steel bottles to devotees in exchange for 1,10,250 used plastic bottles, thereby creating a direct reward mechanism to discourage littering. Additionally, more than 2,500 cloth bags had been distributed to curb the use of plastic carry bags. GPCB further reported that 107 tonnes of plastic waste had already been collected from the padyatra routes, and the efforts would continue throughout the pilgrimage. Counsel for the Board assured the Court that it remained committed to promoting eco-friendly practices at mass gatherings and would expand similar initiatives in future events.

Submissions by the State of Gujarat:

The Advocate General for the State, Kamal Trivedi, also addressed the Court, providing updates on systemic steps being taken to strengthen waste management infrastructure across Gujarat. He informed the bench that pursuant to decisions of the State Monitoring Committee, a circular dated September 6 had been issued to regional commissioners directing all nagar palikas to operationalize Material Recovery Facilities within the specified timelines. Importantly, he clarified that no extension beyond the prescribed deadlines would be granted. The State explained that the deadlines varied depending on land availability and logistical conditions, but the goal was to ensure every nagar palika was equipped with MRF facilities in the near future. The Court was also told that 32 nagar palikas had already established functioning MRFs. The Advocate General stressed that once MRFs were in place, processing units certified by the GPCB would be engaged to handle the segregated waste. The State thus conveyed its seriousness about complying with environmental norms and creating a sustainable infrastructure for plastic waste recycling.

Submissions by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation:

Counsel for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation also made detailed submissions about waste management practices in the city. It was pointed out that Ahmedabad currently had over 11 waste collection centers dedicated to segregation of plastic and non-plastic waste. Two ongoing contracts ensured that around 100 tonnes of waste were segregated per day and forwarded to recycling facilities. The Corporation further informed the Court that cloth bags were being distributed extensively across the city and vending machines dispensing cloth bags had been installed at public spaces such as Kankaria Lake. Each vending machine had a capacity of 40 bags and was periodically refilled as part of a pilot project to curb plastic use. The AMC stressed that apart from large-scale waste collection, it also carried out systematic door-to-door collection covering residential areas, thereby reducing plastic litter at the household level. These submissions were aimed at showing that the municipal corporation was not only conscious of the issue but was actively experimenting with innovative projects to encourage eco-friendly practices.

Court’s Observations and Oral Remarks:

The bench, after hearing the submissions, made several important oral observations highlighting the gaps that still existed despite the commendable initiatives. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal noted that while door-to-door collection was effective for households and residential buildings, it was not sufficient for public places where devotees and citizens tend to discard plastic bottles and bags indiscriminately. The Court remarked that practical enforcement mechanisms were necessary at public gathering points, emphasizing the possibility of preventing plastic entry at designated spots. The Court also suggested the imposition of fines based on the polluter pays principle, noting that economic disincentives often act as strong deterrents against littering. “If you say that you are creating litter here, you have to pay a fine. One or two may ignore, but later they will start complying as they cannot keep paying fines repeatedly,” the bench orally observed. The Court thereby pressed for stricter enforcement models, combining incentives such as exchange programs with punitive measures such as fines. The bench also highlighted the need for guidance from the success of GPCB’s initiatives during the Ambaji Padyatra, which had shown how reverse vending machines and reusable bottle schemes could yield positive results.

Judgment and Future Directions:

Though the matter has not yet reached final adjudication, the bench noted that the PIL had already pushed authorities to take constructive steps. The Court appreciated the efforts of the GPCB and State government in introducing innovative measures but maintained that more needed to be done for comprehensive and long-term solutions. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on November 21, by which time the Court expects affidavits from municipal corporations detailing the steps undertaken for plastic waste management. The bench has kept the issue alive to ensure accountability and ongoing monitoring, reflecting the judiciary’s proactive role in environmental governance. By insisting on timelines for operationalizing MRFs and hinting at stricter application of the polluter pays principle, the Gujarat High Court has sent a clear message that environmental compliance during mass gatherings is a non-negotiable aspect of governance. The judgment underscores the balance between encouraging eco-friendly behavior through incentives and enforcing compliance through deterrent penalties.