Introduction:

The case titled Karnataka State Pollution Control Board v. State of Karnataka & Others [Writ Petition No. 24118 of 2025, Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278] came before the Karnataka High Court, where a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi addressed a significant environmental issue concerning the manufacture, sale, and immersion of idols made of Plaster of Paris (POP) in water bodies. The petitioner in this matter, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), raised concerns about the rampant use and disposal of POP idols painted with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals, which have been causing irreversible pollution of rivers, lakes, wells, streams, and even the ocean. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, represented by the Advocate General, and certain manufacturing units identified to be continuing the production of POP idols in violation of the prohibitory government order dated 10.09.2023. Advocate Mahesh A Chowdhary appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar represented the State. The matter revolved around the environmental impact of such idols, the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 21, the effectiveness of government orders, and the role of state machinery in ensuring compliance.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, contended that the issue at hand was not merely a matter of administrative compliance but a serious constitutional and environmental question. It was argued that immersion of idols made of POP, often painted with oil-based paints containing toxic heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and chromium, directly results in irreversible pollution of water bodies. These harmful substances degrade water quality, damage aquatic life, render water unfit for human consumption, and cause long-term environmental hazards. The counsel emphasized that such practices clearly violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. The petitioner pointed out that despite the government order dated 10.09.2023, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and disposal of POP idols decorated with chemical paints, instances of non-compliance were rampant. In particular, an inspection carried out at Gudimavu Village, Kumbalagodu Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, revealed that certain manufacturing units were openly continuing to produce POP idols in defiance of the statutory directions issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as far back as 20.07.2016. This demonstrated, according to the petitioner, that government authorities had failed to enforce the prohibitory orders effectively. The counsel further submitted that if the ban continued to be disregarded, the very purpose of environmental legislation would be defeated, and irreparable damage would be caused to the ecosystem. Thus, the petitioner urged the court to direct strict compliance with the government order and ensure that state authorities, local bodies, and the police department extended full cooperation to implement the ban.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents:

On behalf of the State of Karnataka, the Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar sought to assure the court that the government was taking the matter seriously and had already initiated action against violators. It was submitted that the government order of 10.09.2023 was in full force and binding throughout the state, completely prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and disposal of POP idols decorated with heavy metal-based paints. The government counsel informed the bench that FIRs had already been registered against certain manufacturing units—respondent nos. 6 and 7—that were found to be violating the order. Further legal action, it was promised, would follow in accordance with law. The respondents also clarified that it was not the case that state authorities were failing to implement the directions; rather, efforts were being made to ensure compliance, though violations had been detected in isolated cases. The government emphasized that district administrations, local bodies, and the police department had already been instructed to extend cooperation to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to monitor and enforce compliance. It was contended that the government’s commitment to environmental protection was evident from its issuance of the prohibitory order itself, and what remained was ensuring strict and sustained implementation. Therefore, the respondents argued that the petition need not result in further judicial directions, since mechanisms for enforcement were already in place and action had been taken against violators.

Court’s Observation and Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions from both sides, the division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi observed that the issue raised by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board was indeed a serious one, involving grave environmental and constitutional concerns. The bench noted that the immersion of idols made of POP and painted with hazardous substances had the potential to cause significant and irreversible damage to water bodies, which in turn directly affected the health and wellbeing of citizens, thereby infringing their fundamental right to life under Article 21. The court acknowledged that the government order dated 10.09.2023 had already addressed the matter by issuing a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, and disposal of POP idols across the state. The order explicitly prohibited not only the production and sale of such idols but also their immersion in rivers, streams, wells, canals, and even seas or oceans within the state’s jurisdiction. The order further mandated that all district administrations, local bodies, and police departments extend full cooperation and protection to officers of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to implement the ban. The court took note of the fact that the state authorities had indeed initiated enforcement measures, including lodging FIRs against identified violators. When queried about whether the petitioner’s grievance lay in non-implementation of the order, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that he was not in a position to make such a statement. This clarification underscored that while violations had been detected, the broader framework for implementation was already in place. In light of these developments, the court concluded that it was not necessary to pass further judicial directions in the matter. Instead, the court emphasized that the state authorities must implement the notification “with all seriousness and to its full extent,” underscoring the judiciary’s expectation that the government would act firmly and without compromise. The bench, therefore, disposed of the petition with the observation that the responsibility of enforcement now rested squarely on the shoulders of the government and its agencies, and that they were expected to uphold their constitutional and statutory duties in protecting the environment.