Introduction:

In Sudhakaran K. V. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Others [WP(C) 16253 of 2023], the Kerala High Court, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, took significant steps to ensure the enforcement of the ban on single-use plastics (SUP) and compliance with the registration requirements under Rule 13 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. The case arose from a PIL highlighting that several plastic manufacturers operated without registration. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) responded with an affidavit detailing its enforcement strategy, following which the Additional Chief Secretary of the Local Self Government Department issued an order for strict compliance. The court further directed the state government to develop a mobile application similar to CPCB’s SUP-CPCB for citizens to report violations. It also ordered extensive awareness drives involving local bodies, retailers, and the general public to ensure adherence to plastic waste management laws.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates P. B. Sahasranaman, T. S. Harikumar, and Sanand Ramakrishnan, argued that despite the prohibition of certain single-use plastic products, manufacturers continued operations without proper registration, leading to widespread non-compliance with environmental regulations. They contended that lax enforcement allowed the proliferation of banned plastic items, undermining the environmental objectives of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. They also pointed out the failure of authorities in conducting timely inspections, leading to the unchecked distribution of non-compliant plastic products. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized the necessity of a robust public grievance mechanism to empower citizens to report violations and ensure accountability among stakeholders. They urged the court to direct the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to implement stricter enforcement measures and conduct awareness campaigns to educate manufacturers, retailers, and the public about the rules. The petitioners also stressed the need for proactive involvement of Local Self-Government Institutions (LSGIs) in identifying violators and assisting enforcement agencies.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, represented by Advocates M. Ajay, T. Naveen (SC), V. Tekchand, G. Hariharan, K. S. Smitha, Amal Dev D. T., and T. Shaniba, maintained that the government had already taken significant steps to curb plastic pollution. They submitted an affidavit outlining various measures undertaken, including periodic inspections, regulatory actions, and sensitization programs. They highlighted the government’s order mandating LSGIs to assist KSPCB in identifying and penalizing violators. Additionally, the respondents contended that enforcement squads had been formed to conduct district-wise inspections of major commercial establishments, stockists, retailers, and importers dealing with non-compliant plastic products. They also informed the court that the Local Self-Government Department (LSGD) had established a War Room Management Portal, a centralized system where citizens could report unauthorized plastic usage. The respondents assured the court that a year-long sensitization campaign was being planned to educate vendors and retailers about the legal requirements concerning plastic packaging, registration, and compliance with environmental standards. They further argued that the state was committed to developing a dedicated mobile application to streamline the monitoring and reporting of plastic ban violations.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions and reviewing the enforcement order issued by the state government, the court laid down strict guidelines to ensure compliance with the plastic ban and registration requirements. The court mandated that the government order be followed rigorously, with violations being reported promptly to the concerned authorities for necessary action. It directed KSPCB to conduct meetings with state and district-level associations of producers, recyclers, and manufacturers within one month, and district-level awareness programs within two months. The court also ordered KSPCB to collaborate with Local Self Government Institutions, Suchitwa Mission, and educational institutions to conduct public awareness initiatives, including street plays, exhibitions on plastic alternatives, media campaigns, and interactive sessions. These awareness efforts were to be repeated annually. Importantly, the court directed the state government to develop and launch a mobile application similar to CPCB’s SUP-CPCB within three months, allowing citizens to report violations and track enforcement progress. The court held that any public-spirited individual, NGO, or the petitioner could approach it for further directions regarding the functioning of enforcement squads or assistance to the Pollution Control Board. By reinforcing stringent monitoring mechanisms, enhancing public participation, and mandating extensive awareness campaigns, the Kerala High Court’s judgment marks a significant step toward effective plastic waste management in the state.