Introduction:

The Kerala High Court has emphasised the need for continuous monitoring and effective enforcement to prevent the sale of prohibited chemical kumkum and plastic sachets in the Sabarimala pilgrimage area. The Court observed that awareness campaigns alone would not be sufficient to address the environmental and public health concerns arising from the circulation of non-compliant products. It called for systematic inspections, prompt action against violations and coordination among the departments responsible for enforcing the restrictions.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made these observations while considering a suo motu petition concerning the arrangements and facilities required for pilgrims during the upcoming Sabarimala pilgrimage season. During the proceedings on November 11, the Bench examined the steps taken by various government departments to prevent the manufacture, sale and distribution of prohibited chemical kumkum and plastic sachets in the Sabarimala region and at Erumeli in Kottayam district.

The issue is not entirely new. In an earlier suo motu proceeding concerning the Sabarimala area, the High Court had prohibited the sale of chemical kumkum and plastic shampoo sachets at Sabarimala and the edathavalam, or resting place, at Erumeli. The restrictions were imposed after the Court took note of the environmental degradation associated with the use and disposal of such materials in the pilgrimage region.

The Court had also directed an investigation into the distribution network of chemical kumkum, sought laboratory certification of the product and ordered inspections of retail establishments involved in its sale. These directions reflected the Court’s concern that the problem could not be addressed merely by prohibiting the sale of the products at particular locations. It was also necessary to identify the sources of supply, examine the quality and composition of the products and ensure that vendors complied with the applicable regulatory standards.

During the latest hearing, the Bench was informed that the Joint Director of the Local Self-Government Department (LSGD), Kottayam, had constituted eight squads to conduct systematic inspections and prevent the use and sale of the prohibited items. The Court expected these squads to discharge their responsibilities effectively and ensure that their inspections resulted in measurable improvements.

The Bench also considered a report submitted by the Drugs Inspector, Kottayam, which described the measures undertaken by the Drugs Control Department to address the manufacture, sale and distribution of kumkum that did not comply with the standards prescribed under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020.

The report indicated that awareness activities had been initiated among street vendors, licensed establishments and cosmetic suppliers in and around Erumeli Grama Panchayat. Posters explaining labelling requirements and applicable quality standards had been used to inform those involved in the sale and supply of cosmetic products.

However, the Court considered that awareness measures must be supported by effective inspections and enforcement action. It also highlighted the role of the State Pollution Control Board and the Erumeli Grama Panchayat in ensuring that prohibited materials did not continue to circulate unchecked.

An important issue that emerged during the hearing concerned the practical difficulties faced by the Drugs Control Department in initiating prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Department suggested that prohibited items could be seized by the Drugs Inspector and handed over to the Panchayat for further action and disposal. The Panchayat, however, maintained that prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act would be the only effective deterrent against violations.

The Court therefore sought the presence of senior officers of the Drugs Control Department to examine the difficulties and identify an effective enforcement mechanism. The matter has been posted to November 19 for further consideration.

The proceedings highlight the importance of protecting the fragile environment of the Sabarimala pilgrimage region while ensuring that regulatory restrictions are implemented in practice. They also raise broader questions concerning interdepartmental coordination, regulatory accountability and the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms against prohibited consumer products.

Arguments of the Parties:

The proceedings primarily involved the Court examining compliance by the concerned government departments and the practical difficulties associated with enforcing the restrictions on prohibited chemical kumkum and plastic sachets. The submissions of the Drugs Control Department and Erumeli Grama Panchayat brought out differing views on the most effective method of dealing with violations.

The Drugs Control Department, through the report submitted by the Drugs Inspector, Kottayam, informed the Court about the measures undertaken to address the manufacture, sale and distribution of kumkum that did not comply with the standards prescribed under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020.

The Department stated that awareness initiatives had been undertaken in and around Erumeli Grama Panchayat. Street vendors, licensed establishments and cosmetic suppliers were being informed about the applicable labelling requirements and quality standards through awareness materials, including posters.

These efforts were intended to familiarise vendors and suppliers with the regulatory requirements governing cosmetic products and to discourage the sale of products that failed to meet the prescribed standards. The report also demonstrated that the Department had taken steps to address the issue through regulatory awareness and monitoring.

However, the Drugs Control Department brought to the Court’s attention the practical difficulties it was facing in initiating prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Department suggested that an alternative arrangement could be considered to ensure that prohibited products were not allowed to remain in circulation.

According to the submission, the Drugs Inspector could seize the prohibited items and hand them over to the Panchayat. The Panchayat could then initiate appropriate action and arrange for their disposal. This approach was presented as a practical way of ensuring that seized products were removed from the market, particularly in view of the difficulties experienced by the Department in pursuing prosecution under the relevant legislation.

The Department’s submission raised an important question about the division of responsibilities between regulatory authorities and local self-government institutions. While the Drugs Control Department is concerned with compliance with the statutory standards governing cosmetics, the Panchayat also has responsibilities relating to local enforcement, public health and the disposal of prohibited materials.

The Erumeli Grama Panchayat, however, expressed a different view regarding the effectiveness of the proposed arrangement. It submitted that prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act would be the only effective deterrent against persons engaged in the sale of prohibited or non-compliant products.

The Panchayat’s position was that merely seizing the products and handing them over for disposal might not adequately discourage repeated violations. If vendors and suppliers faced no meaningful legal consequences, the prohibited materials could continue to enter the market through the same or different distribution channels.

The Panchayat therefore stressed the importance of taking action under the applicable statutory framework rather than relying solely on seizure and disposal. Its submission placed emphasis on deterrence and the need to ensure that those responsible for violations were held accountable.

The Court also considered the steps taken by the Local Self-Government Department. It was informed that the Joint Director, LSGD, Kottayam, had constituted eight squads to undertake systematic inspections and prevent the use of banned products. These squads were expected to inspect the relevant establishments and identify violations.

The Court further considered the role of the State Pollution Control Board. During the hearing, the Bench orally reiterated its concern about environmental pollution and emphasised that the Board must actively participate in preventing the use and disposal of prohibited materials.

The available case summary does not record separate detailed arguments by the petitioners or any opposing private parties on the merits of the restrictions. The principal submissions before the Court concerned the enforcement measures adopted by the government departments, the practical difficulties in prosecution and the Panchayat’s insistence that statutory prosecution was necessary to create an effective deterrent.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar emphasised that restrictions imposed to protect the Sabarimala region must be implemented through effective monitoring and enforcement. The Court made it clear that merely issuing directions or conducting awareness campaigns would not achieve the intended objective unless violations were detected and followed by appropriate action.

The Bench took note of the constitution of eight inspection squads by the Joint Director of the Local Self-Government Department, Kottayam. It expressed the expectation that these squads would perform their assigned duties effectively and ensure that inspections led to tangible improvements on the ground.

The Court observed:

“We expect that the squads will discharge their assigned responsibilities effectively and ensure that the inspections result in tangible improvements on the ground…Periodic reports regarding the inspections conducted, violations detected and corrective measures initiated shall be maintained and submitted before this Court.”

This direction places importance on accountability and documentation. The Court did not treat the mere constitution of inspection squads as sufficient compliance. Instead, it required the authorities to maintain periodic records showing the inspections conducted, the violations discovered and the corrective measures initiated.

Such reporting is significant because it enables the Court to assess whether the enforcement mechanism is functioning in practice. Without documented inspections and details of action taken, it would be difficult to determine whether the restrictions are being followed or whether prohibited products continue to be sold through local retail outlets.

The Bench also examined the report submitted by the Drugs Inspector, Kottayam. The report outlined the steps taken by the Drugs Control Department to address the manufacture, sale and distribution of kumkum that did not meet the standards prescribed under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020.

The Court noted that awareness measures had been initiated among street vendors, licensed establishments and cosmetic suppliers in and around Erumeli Grama Panchayat. These measures included the use of posters explaining labelling requirements and quality standards.

However, the Bench made an important distinction between creating awareness and enforcing compliance. While educating vendors and suppliers about regulatory standards is necessary, such measures cannot replace inspections or legal action when violations are found.

The Court therefore stressed that effective inspections and prompt enforcement action were essential components of the regulatory process. A vendor who continues to sell prohibited or non-compliant products despite awareness of the applicable restrictions cannot be dealt with merely through further instructions or advisory measures.

The Bench also highlighted the responsibility of the State Pollution Control Board in addressing the environmental concerns raised in the proceedings. The issue was not limited to whether a cosmetic product complied with prescribed quality standards. The use and disposal of plastic sachets and other prohibited materials also raised concerns about pollution in an ecologically sensitive pilgrimage region.

Sabarimala attracts large numbers of pilgrims, particularly during the pilgrimage season. The movement and gathering of pilgrims, together with the sale and consumption of various products, can place considerable pressure on the surrounding environment. Materials such as plastic sachets may contribute to waste accumulation if their use and disposal are not effectively regulated.

The Court consequently considered the involvement of the Pollution Control Board necessary to ensure that environmental restrictions were properly implemented. It orally reiterated its concern and directed the Board to play an active role in preventing pollution.

The Bench also specifically directed the Secretary of Erumeli Grama Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board to closely monitor the situation and coordinate with the other departments concerned.

The Court observed:

“We direct the Secretary of the Erumeli Grama Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board, which also has an important role in addressing the issues raised in these proceedings, to closely monitor the situation and coordinate with the other Departments concerned. They shall provide the necessary inputs and assistance to the enforcement authorities so that violations are promptly identified, and appropriate remedial measures are taken. The objective must be to ensure that the restrictions imposed are effectively implemented and that the use of prohibited materials does not continue unchecked.”

This direction reflects the Court’s emphasis on coordinated enforcement. The responsibility for preventing the sale of prohibited materials cannot be placed on one department alone when the issue involves multiple aspects of regulation, public health, local administration and environmental protection.

The Drugs Control Department has a role in ensuring compliance with the applicable standards governing cosmetic products. The Local Self-Government Department and the Panchayat are involved in local inspections and enforcement, while the Pollution Control Board has an important responsibility in addressing the environmental consequences of prohibited materials.

The Court sought to ensure that these authorities functioned in coordination rather than treating the issue as falling exclusively within the responsibility of another department. The Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board were expected to provide the necessary assistance and inputs to enforcement authorities so that violations could be identified promptly and remedial measures implemented without delay.

An important issue arose regarding the manner in which violations should be dealt with under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Drugs Control Department informed the Court that it was facing difficulties in initiating prosecution under the legislation. It suggested that the Drugs Inspector could seize the prohibited items and hand them over to the Panchayat for further action and disposal.

The Panchayat, however, maintained that prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act would be the only effective deterrent. This difference in approach required the Court to examine whether the proposed seizure-and-disposal arrangement would adequately address the problem or whether the statutory prosecution mechanism needed to be strengthened.

The Court did not finally resolve this question during the hearing. Instead, recognising that the difficulties raised by the Department required examination at an appropriate administrative level, the Bench directed the Special Government Pleader to ensure the presence of senior officers of the Drugs Control Department before the Court.

The purpose of requiring their presence was to understand the logistical and infrastructural difficulties affecting the Department’s ability to initiate prosecution and to consider appropriate remedial measures. The Court sought a practical solution that would ensure effective implementation of the restrictions without allowing procedural or administrative difficulties to defeat their purpose.

The direction is significant because it recognises that enforcement of statutory restrictions requires not only legal authority but also the administrative capacity to exercise that authority. If the responsible department faces difficulties in investigation, seizure, prosecution or coordination, those difficulties must be identified and addressed rather than becoming a reason for ineffective enforcement.

The earlier suo motu proceedings concerning chemical kumkum and plastic shampoo sachets also provide important context for the latest directions. In those proceedings, the High Court had prohibited the sale of the specified products at Sabarimala and the edathavalam at Erumeli after taking note of environmental degradation. It had also ordered an investigation into the distribution network of chemical kumkum, sought laboratory certification and directed inspections of retail shops selling the product.

The latest hearing demonstrates that the Court continues to monitor whether those restrictions are being implemented effectively. The focus has now shifted towards ensuring regular inspections, maintaining records of violations, coordinating the work of different departments and resolving difficulties in taking legal action against offenders.

The reference to the Cosmetics Rules, 2020, is also relevant. Products falling within the regulatory framework governing cosmetics must comply with the applicable standards, including prescribed requirements concerning quality and labelling. The Drugs Control Department’s report indicated that it had undertaken awareness measures to inform suppliers and vendors about these requirements.

However, the Court’s concern extends beyond technical compliance. The restrictions imposed in the Sabarimala region also address the environmental consequences of prohibited materials, particularly plastic waste. The enforcement mechanism must therefore be capable of addressing both regulatory violations relating to cosmetic products and the environmental harm associated with the use and disposal of banned materials.

The proceedings also underline the importance of preventive governance during major pilgrimage seasons. Authorities are expected to anticipate the challenges associated with large gatherings and take timely measures to prevent avoidable environmental damage. Inspections, coordination and prompt corrective action are especially important in areas that experience a substantial increase in visitors during particular periods.

The Court has posted the matter to November 19 for further consideration. Senior officers of the Drugs Control Department are expected to be present so that the Court can examine the practical difficulties faced by the Department and consider appropriate solutions.

The latest directions do not conclude the proceedings or settle the question of the precise enforcement mechanism to be adopted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Instead, they seek further information and administrative accountability before the Court determines how the difficulties can be addressed.

Ultimately, the Kerala High Court’s intervention reinforces the principle that environmental restrictions must be supported by effective implementation. Prohibiting the sale of harmful or non-compliant products is only the first step. Authorities must also inspect retail establishments, identify violations, take appropriate legal action and ensure that prohibited materials are not allowed to re-enter circulation. By requiring eriodic reports and coordinated action from the concerned d