Introduction:
In Abhinav Thapar v. Union of India, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought before the Rajasthan High Court, serious environmental concerns have been raised regarding the issuance of a tender by the Rajasthan Government’s Excise Department for the procurement of approximately 600 crore polyester-based coloured security hologram labels. The matter was placed before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, which issued notice to the State authorities and sought their response.
The petition challenges the legality of the State’s decision to invite e-bids for manufacturing and supplying excise adhesive labels made of non-collectible and non-recyclable plastic material with a thickness of 36 microns. According to the petitioner, such specification is in direct contravention of Rule 4(d) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, which prescribes a minimum thickness of 50 microns for plastic carry bags and similar materials. The plea alleges that the tender not only violates statutory mandates but also disregards binding environmental principles recognized by constitutional jurisprudence and judicial precedents of the Apex Court and the National Green Tribunal.
The High Court, taking cognizance of the allegations, has sought clarification from the State as to why a 36-micron specification was insisted upon when the statutory minimum standard is 50 microns or above. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 17, 2026.
Arguments Advanced in the Public Interest Litigation:
The petitioner has presented a multi-layered challenge to the tender, asserting that it is illegal, arbitrary, environmentally hazardous, and violative of constitutional protections.
1. Violation of Statutory Mandate under the 2016 Rules
The core argument of the petitioner rests on Rule 4(d) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Rules mandate that plastic materials must have a minimum thickness of 50 microns to ensure recyclability, durability, and reduced environmental harm.
The petitioner contends that by specifying 36-micron thickness for excise adhesive labels, the State has acted in direct contravention of this statutory requirement. The plea asserts that such a deviation is not a minor procedural irregularity but a substantial violation of environmental law designed to curb plastic pollution.
It is further argued that thinner plastic materials are more prone to fragmentation, leading to the generation of microplastics. These microplastics infiltrate soil, water bodies, and the food chain, posing long-term ecological and public health risks.
2. Non-Collectible and Non-Recyclable Plastic
The PIL emphasizes that the labels in question are non-collectible and non-recyclable. Unlike certain regulated plastic products that can be systematically collected and processed, excise adhesive labels affixed to liquor bottles and beer cans often remain attached and are discarded along with packaging waste.
Given that the tender contemplates production of approximately 600 crore such labels, the petitioner argues that the environmental burden would be enormous and potentially irreversible. The scale of procurement, according to the plea, magnifies the illegality and its impact.
3. Alleged Disregard of National Ban on Single-Use Plastic
The petitioner has described the State’s action as wilful defiance of the national ban on Single-Use Plastic (SUP). It is alleged that authorities have ignored statutory directions issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the Environment Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan, both of whom reportedly held that the 36-micron specification is legally impermissible.
The plea characterizes the conduct as manipulative and arbitrary, asserting that the State has attempted to bypass environmental safeguards under the guise of administrative discretion.
4. Violation of Constitutional Principles
The petition invokes Article 21 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. The issuance of a tender that allegedly promotes large-scale plastic pollution is said to infringe upon this fundamental right.
The petitioner further relies upon established environmental doctrines, including:
- The Precautionary Principle
- The Polluter Pays Principle
It is argued that these principles form part of Indian environmental jurisprudence and impose a duty upon the State to prevent ecological harm rather than facilitate it.
5. Uniform National Standard
The PIL highlights that similar tenders involving identical plastic hologram specifications were cancelled in other States. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrates the existence of a uniform national environmental standard that Rajasthan alone has chosen to disregard.
By deviating from this standard, the State is alleged to have undermined cooperative environmental governance and regulatory consistency across the country.
Possible Stand of the State Authorities:
While the Court has only issued notice and not yet recorded a detailed response from the State, certain possible defenses may be anticipated based on administrative and regulatory practice.
1. Nature of Excise Labels
The State may argue that excise adhesive labels are specialized security holograms and may not fall strictly within the category of plastic carry bags or similar items contemplated under Rule 4(d). It could contend that the thickness requirement may not directly apply to such specific regulatory instruments used for excise control and anti-counterfeiting measures.
2. Functional Necessity
Another potential argument could be that the 36-micron specification is driven by technical or functional requirements. Security holograms must adhere properly to bottles and cans, resist tampering, and maintain integrity under varied storage conditions. The State may claim that a thinner material is technologically appropriate and economically viable.
3. Regulatory Interpretation
The Government may also assert that the interpretation of the Plastic Waste Management Rules is not as rigid as suggested and that exemptions or clarifications may apply. It could maintain that the tender complies with applicable environmental norms or that appropriate clearances have been obtained.
However, these arguments remain speculative until formally placed on record.
Observations and Directions of the Court:
The Division Bench, upon preliminary consideration of the matter, deemed the issues raised to be significant and worthy of judicial scrutiny.
Without expressing any final opinion on merits, the Court issued notice to the State Government and its Excise Department. The Bench specifically sought an explanation as to why the advertisement demanded holograms of 36 microns rather than 50 microns or above, in light of the statutory framework.
By seeking a detailed briefing, the Court has signaled that environmental compliance in public procurement cannot be overlooked. The issuance of notice indicates that the Bench found prima facie substance in the concerns raised by the petitioner.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 17, 2026, where the State is expected to justify its tender conditions.