ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 has 91 Sections and 3 Schedules. 

(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the enactments aforesaid, any action taken, including creation of any body or authority, grant of licence or permissions by whatever name called, grant of exemption, conduct of inspection or investigation or passing of orders, issuance of notice, any document or instrument executed, funds collected or any proceedings, complaints or appeal pending or ongoing, under the enactments so repealed, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act.

(3) All rules, notifications, orders, directions and regulatory documents made or issued or purported to have been made or issued under the enactments so repealed shall, in so far as they relate to matters for which provision is made in this Act and are not inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been made or issued under this Act as if this Act had been in force on the date on which such rule, notifications, orders, directions and regulatory documents were made or issued, and shall continue in force unless and until they are superseded by any rule, notification, order, direction or regulatory document made or issued under this Act.

(4) Any person appointed to any office under or by virtue of any enactment hereby repealed shall be deemed to have been appointed by that office under or by virtue of this Act.

(5) Any principle or rule of law, practice or procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction or exemption shall not be affected, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have been in any manner affirmed or recognised or derived by, in, or from, the enactments hereby repealed.

(6) The offices existing on the commencement of this Act shall continue as if they have been established under the provisions of this Act.

I am so delighted today, rare in these times. Zohran Mamdani’s victory against all odds.

His father Mahmood Mamdani’s book The Myth of Population Control  inspired my Ph.D thesis.

A bit of a background to this. A widely accepted demographic transition theory was that birth rates fell when societies urbanised, industrialised, were not based family labour to sustain families. This theory was based on the demographic experience of First World countries.

This meant of course that Third World countries, where birth rates were rising, could not expect birth rates to fall, since there was no demand for family planning services. Families were valued for the security they provided in old age. Children worked on family owned lands. Also, given high infant and child mortality, it made little sense to have few children.

Then arrived the monumental Khanna study (The Khanna Study: Population Problems in Rural Punjab, Harvard University Press,1971). Public health scholars from Harvard carried out this very well-funded study in Punjab over a period of five years. Their findings–that the Punjab peasantry welcomed contraception overthrew the demographic transition theory: here were peasants seeking contraception.

It was on the basis of this study that India began the family planning programme, that sucked funds from health programmes and turned into a behemoth, victimising the poorest and most marginalised.

On this study was based the most expensive health programme in the world. The Rockefeller Foundation supported the study and the family planning programme as well.   

Mamdani shows in the book, that the Punjabi peasant was not a foolish superstitious person. He, yes, he, had reasons to want more sons and as a result had more children. They were economic assets, daughters were not. They provided security in old age. But this perception varied among different sections of the peasantry. The really poor agricultural labourers in fact had the smallest families.

Other quantitative data had their own problems, as Prof. Krishnaji’s work had revealed.

So the idea that the poor had large families was a total myth, created Neo-Malthusian imaginations.

Since Mamdani’s work was largely anecdotal, I decided to do a multi-method study in Mandya district in Karnataka, carrying out field work for two years. My study gave both quantitative and qualitative depth to Mamdani’s work. The lowest family size is among landless labourers, irrespective of caste. Family size increases with landholding up to the rich peasant class, after which it starts declining.  

My Ph.D thesis is with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and should be available on the website of  JNU. It forms a chapter in my book, From Population Control to Reproductive Health: Malthusian Arithmetic (Sage, 2004.)

My Ph.D is therefore Zohran Mamdani’s sibling!

By Mohan Rao

The author was a professor at the Centre for Community Health and Social Medicine, JNU. 

The identified list of 196 potential contaminated sites and 189 hazardous chemicals all over India aren’t comprehensive enough in absence of the inventory of all the chemicals and hazardous chemicals which are used in the country.

Section 2 (2) Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025 is a very progressive piece of subordinate legislation under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as amended through Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2024.

Although the provisions under it state that these Rules shall not apply to a contaminated site affected by radioactive waste as defined under clause (xxii) of rule 2 of the Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987; mining operations as defined under clause (d) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957); (pollution of the sea by oil or oily substance as governed by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil) Rules, 1974; and solid waste from dump site as defined under clause 20 of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, its ambit covers sites where the contamination of a site is due to a contaminant mixed with radioactive waste or mining operations or oil spill or solid waste from dump site. It covers sites where the contamination of the site" is due to the contaminant" which exceeds the limit of response level specified in these rules. In such cases the remediation of the site would be covered under these rules. It will also cover contaminated sites. It defines “contaminated site” as an area or a site affected with contaminants and declared as a contaminated site under Rule 3 of 2025 Rules. The “contaminant” refers to the presence of hazardous substance as defined in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 above the response levels set out in Schedule I which provides standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants.  

This step is a progress in the right direction because Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 do not apply to waste-water and exhaust gases under the Water (Prevention and Control of  Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, wastes arising out of the operation from ships beyond five kilometres of the relevant baseline as covered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, radio-active wastes under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, bio-medical wastes covered under the Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and wastes covered under the Municipal Solid Wastes Management Rules, 2016.

The new Rules provide a timeline for remediation measures. Subsequent to identification of contaminated sites by the local body or district administration, on its own or on receipt of a complaint from public, it is required to list all such areas as suspected contaminated sites in its jurisdiction on centralised online portal taking into account any information available through implementation of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016 and information available through management of consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, any studies or investigations done by government agencies, information available through location factors that increase the risk of contamination such as vicinity of a previously contaminated site and underground storage of chemicals, historic industrial or any anthropogenic activity that may have caused contamination of site with hazardous substances or chemicals of concern at the site or such other factors as it considers appropriate.

The local body or district administration is required to furnish the list of suspected contaminated sites to the State Pollution Control Board/Committee periodically on a half-yearly basis on the centralised online portal. The State Board is also required to identify suspected contaminated sites located in the industries or industrial premises through Consent monitoring mechanism available under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is required to undertake preliminary site assessment of the suspected contaminated site by sampling and analysis of the suspected contaminated site, within ninety days from the date of receipt of such list.  On completion of the preliminary site assessment, the State Board is required to list the suspected contaminated site as probable contaminated site if the contaminant is found to be above the screening level or delist the site as investigated site if the contaminant is found to be below the screening level. It is required to furnish such a list of probable contaminated sites and investigated sites to the Central Pollution Control Board on the centralised online portal, within thirty days from the date of completion of the preliminary site assessment. On its own or through a reference organisation, it is required to undertake a detailed site assessment of a probable contaminated site by detailed sampling and analysis covering the entire geographical area of the probable contaminated site, within three months from the date of listing of such site.

After completion of the detailed site assessment, it is required to list the site as a contaminated site for further action if the contaminant is found to be above the response level. After completion of the detailed site assessment, it may delist the site as an investigated site if contaminant is found to be below response level. It is required to issue a public notice restricting or prohibiting any activity during the preliminary or detailed assessment of the suspected or probable contaminated site, respectively, keeping in view the risks involved to human health and the environment, under intimation to relevant authorities in the state government.

The state board is required to publish the list of contaminated sites on the centralised online portal inviting comments and suggestions from the stakeholders likely to be affected, within sixty days of such publication. Upon receipt of the comments and suggestions from the stakeholders, it is required to publish the final list of contaminated sites on the centralised online portal and also publish a notice in this regard in two local newspaper having circulation in the area for the information of the general public and also indicating the precaution to be taken in this regard.

For remediation of the contaminated sites, the state pollution board is required to select a reference organisation with experience in assessment of contamination of hazardous substances and chemicals and preparation of remediation plan, within three months from the date of publication of the list of the contaminated sites and initiate preparation of remediation plan and execute remediation activities.

Upon publication of the contaminated site, after an inquiry, it is required to identify the person who is responsible for causing the contamination of the site within a period of ninety days. In case, the contaminated site has been transferred by the person (transferor) causing the contamination to another person (transferee), the state board is required to determine the responsible person as the other person (transferee). Where the responsible person is identified, it is required to direct the responsible person to prepare a remediation plan and undertake remediation through the reference organisation and bear the expenses towards it. 

Upon directions from the board, the responsible person is required to prepare the remediation plan within six months from the date of directions and submit it to the state pollution control board for its approval. The remediation plan is required to lay down the site-specific remediation level, the method of risk assessment, the method of remediation or decontamination or cleaning up of the contaminated site, the financial resources required and the time frame required for undertaking remediation along with environmental and safety safeguards during remediation, post-remediation monitoring and assessment activities, and occupational health, safety and emergency response. The board is required to review and approve the remediation plan submitted by the responsible person within three months from the date of submission of the remediation plan, and forward a copy thereof to the Central Board for information. After approval of the remediation plan, the responsible person is required to initiate the remediation of the contaminated site as per the remediation plan and furnish half-yearly progress report to the state board with intimation to the central pollution control board till the completion of the remediation.

Based on the approval of the remediation plan, the state board is required to recommend to the state government for issuing orders for rehabilitation of people from contaminated sites to take forward the remediation activities. Where the responsible person is not identified, the state board is  required to prepare a remediation plan on its own or through the reference organisation within six months from the date of publication of the contaminated site, for undertaking remediation of the contaminated site either out of its own resources or through support from state government or both and resources of central government within ninety days from the finalisation of the remediation plan.

After completion of the remediation, it is required to notify the remediated site specifying the land use fit for carrying out certain activities or restrict any such activity on such site and furnish a report to the central board. In case the suspected contaminated site or the probable contaminated site is located in the premises of an industry or a notified industrial area, the state board is required to direct the Industrial Development Authority concerned or the industry concerned to carry out preliminary or detailed site assessment, as the case may be, through a reference organisation and furnish a report to state board till its completion for undertaking remediation of such sites.

These Rules were long due but its scope is limited to only 189 hazardous chemicals including hazardous asbestos. It has missed the opportunity to provide an inventory of all the chemicals and minerals in general and hazardous chemicals and minerals which are used/emitted/transported in the country. There is a compelling scientific logic for the environment ministry to draw lessons from inventories in China, Europe and USA and prepare an inventory of all the chemicals and minerals used/emitted/transported in the country. Now that the new Rules reiterate the hazardous nature of asbestos, ahead of the 21st meeting of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade which is scheduled from 23-26 September 2025 in Rome, India should support CRC's recommendation for inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the category of industrial chemicals in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention, which is pending since 2006.

Coincidentally, Dinesh Runiwal, a scientist in the Hazardous Substances Management Division in the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) is a member of the CRC until April 30, 2028. He replaced Amit Vashishtha, a scientist with the Hazardous Substances Management Division of MoEF & CC. Runiwal is also the Member Secretary of the 14 member-Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry-1 Sector) under Environment Impact Assessment Division under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. This Committee undertakes appraisal of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. There appears to be a conflict-of-interest in his dual role. In his latter role he is part of the Expert Appraisal Committee which grants environmental clearance to plants of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. In his former role he is part of the CRC which has recommended inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention which includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure. Can Runiwal do justice to both the roles? 

In order to empower the environment ministry, the environment minister should be included in the 11-member Prime Minister headed Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and 12-member Cabinet Committee on lnvestment and Growth.which are the key committees which end up providing clearance to projects which cause catastrophic contamination. This is required to ensure that it does not take decisions which promote environmental pollution which have intragenerational and intergenerational adverse impacts. These two committees alone can provide logistical and financial support for creating a national inventory of chemicals and contaminated sites for remediation. In the absence of their support the Rules will remain an exercise in pious thinking devoid of environmentally sound scientific action. 

Coincidentally, Jagat Prakash Nadda, the union minister for chemicals, which promotes trade in chemicals including asbestos is also the union minister for health which regulates chemicals including health impact of all kinds of asbestos. Unless such conflict-of-interest is removed the purpose of well intentioned rules of the union environment minister will be defeated.         

Based on the recommendations of Prof. MGK. Menon headed High Powered Committee (HPC) hazardous wastes, Supreme Court had given 5-7 months for the preparation and publication of National Inventory regarding Hazardous Waste generation and hazardous waste dump sites after States and Union Territories prepare such inventories" fixing time frame for implementation of Rehabilitation Plan in its order dated October 14, 2003 but the Court's direction has not been complied with so far. The Court had directed the union government to come out with a national policy on hazardous wastes, landfills, ship-breaking and sought display of nature and quantity of hazardous waste generated by factories.

The fourteen Terms of Reference on which the Prof. M.G.K. Menon headed High Powered Committee  gave its report and recommendations to the Supreme Court were:
"(1) Whether and to what extent the hazardous wastes listed in Basel Convention have been banned by the Govt. and to examine which other hazardous wastes, other than listed in Basel Convention and Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, require banning.
(2) To verify the present status of the units handling hazardous wastes imported for recycling
or generating/recycling indigenous hazardous wastes on the basis of information provided by respective States/UTs and determine the status of implementation of Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 by various States/UTs and in the light of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(3) What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that banned toxic/hazardous wastes are not allowed to be imported.
(4) What are the changes required in the existing laws to regulate the functioning of units handling hazardous wastes and for protecting the people (including workers in the factory) from environmental hazards.
(5) To assess the adequacy of the existing facilities for disposal of hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner and to make recommendations about the most suitable manner for disposal of hazardous wastes.
(6)What is further required to be done to effectively prohibit, monitor and regulate the functioning of units handling hazardous wastes keeping in view the existing body of laws.
(7) To make recommendations as to what should be the prerequisites for issuance of authorisation/permission under Rule 5 and Rule 11 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989.
(8) To identify the criteria for designation of areas for locating units handling hazardous wastes and waste disposal sites.
(9) To determine as to whether the authorizations/permissions given by the State Boards for handling hazardous wastes are in accordance with Rules 5(4) and Rule 11 of hazardous Waste Rules, 1989 and whether the decision of the State Pollution Control Boards is based on any prescribed procedure of checklist.
(10) To recommend a mechanism for publication of inventory at regular intervals giving area-wise information about the level and nature of hazardous wastes.
(11) What should be the framework for reducing risks to environment and public health by stronger regulation and by promoting production methods and products which are ecologically friendly and thus reduce the production of toxics?
(12) To consider any other related area as the Committee may deem fit.
(13) To examine the quantum and nature of hazardous waste stock lying at the docks/ports/ICDs and recommend a mechanism for its safe disposal or re-export to the original exporters.
(14) Decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking."

With regard to decontamination of ships before they are exported to India for breaking,Court’s order of October 14, 2003 reads: "At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention’s Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous substances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State level.” There has been no compliance with this direction so far.

Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025 is a step in the right direction but more such steps are required in the light of the Court's directions on the recommendations of the HPC on these 14 subjects.  

Dr. Gopal Krishna

The author is a practicing advocate and a law, philosophy and public policy researcher on the subject of science, corporate crimes, ecocide, disarmament and big data. 

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) and Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) join Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries to express unwavering solidarity with Greenpeace in the wake of the deeply unjust verdict handed down by a North Dakota, United States jury for more than $600 million in damages against Greenpeace entities—including Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International—in an outrageous Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). 

Morton County jury of nine reached a verdict in Energy Transfer’s meritless lawsuit against Greenpeace entities in the US and Greenpeace International, finding the entities liable for more than US$660 million, on March 19, 2025, Big Oil Bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest against Energy Transfer, a company that runs one of the largest fossil fuel pipeline networks and associated energy infrastructure in the US. Its founder and Executive Chairman is Texan billionaire Kelcy Warren, a key financial supporter of Donald Trump. In April 2016, tribal members set up prayer encampments to voice objections to the route ET had chosen for its Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), and organised powerful displays of resistance to corporate power that clearly rattled Big Oil. 

Energy Transfer’s lawsuits are examples of SLAPPs, the questionable lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.

ET’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on the state law so ET promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years.  

A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

Notably, a report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 1049 SLAPP suits in Europe in the period 2010-2023, with 166 lawsuits initiated in 2023. 

In February 2025, GPI initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against ET. GPI is seeking to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET’s meritless lawsuits. 

Since 2017, GPI and Greenpeace entities in the US have been defending against ET’s brazen lawsuits, filed in the wake of the 2016 Indigenous-led protests against its Dakota Access Pipeline, which ET claims were orchestrated by Greenpeace. ET’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. ET promptly filed a new case recycling similar arguments in a North Dakota state court, now packaged as claims for defamation, conspiracy and other torts. The jury trial is opened on February 24, 2025. North Dakota lacks anti-SLAPP legislation. 

Energy Transfer’s lawsuits are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs. Like all SLAPPs, ET’s lawsuits have been an attempt to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silenced.

Based in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International is citing Dutch law on torts and abuse of rights, as well as Chapter V of the EU Directive, adopted in 2024, which protects organisations based in the EU against SLAPPs outside the EU, and entitles them to compensation.

Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’). Directive (EU) 2024/1069, Chapter V, provides protection against third-country judgments. 

The Directive, along with existing Dutch law, paves the way for GPI to pursue remedies against three entities in ET’s corporate group, specifically Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating LP, and Dakota Access LLC, for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the SLAPP suits and related actions in the US. 

The Netherlands, like all EU Member States, has until May 2026 to transpose the Directive into national law. But the Dutch government has stated existing Dutch law can and should be interpreted as giving effect to Chapter V of the Directive, with no need for amendment.

Greenpeace International sent Energy Transfer a Notice of Liability in July 2024, summoning it to withdraw its lawsuit in North Dakota and pay damages, or face legal action. Energy Transfer refused to do so.

The EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive comes into force amid the fossil fuel industry’s widespread misuse of legal systems to target environmental watchdogs, and any critics, part of a wider trend of increasing SLAPPs. A report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 1,049 SLAPP suits in Europe in the period 2010-2023, with 166 lawsuits initiated in 2023. The number of SLAPPs in Europe continues to rise. 

Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years, with Shell and Total’s attempts at silencing already ending in embarrassment. On December 10, 2024, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK agreed with Shell to settle the oil giant’s multimillion US dollar intimidation lawsuit over a peaceful protest conducted by the campaign groups in 2023.

The settlement followed over a year of sustained campaigning by Greenpeace against Shell’s lawsuit. Experts have described the case as a SLAPP, a type of abusive lawsuit commonly brought by wealthy corporations to silence critics.

The Greenpeace defendants faced over $11 million USD in damages and legal costs as a result of the lawsuit. As part of the final settlement, they will accept no liability and pay no money to Shell, instead agreeing to donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). 

They also agreed to avoid protesting for a period at four Shell sites in the northern North Sea. The sites in question are mostly declining fields where the Greenpeace defendants had no plans to take direct action. Greenpeace continues to campaign against Shell including in the North Sea. 

In such a backdrop, the alarming decision by the jury in USA is a dangerous escalation in corporate attacks on civil society, aimed at chilling future protests, and silencing those who dare to stand in defense of people and the planet. It also further undermines the sovereignty of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who has been resisting Energy Transfer’s efforts to force the Dakota Access Pipeline through their land and drinking water supply. Greenpeace, answering the Tribe’s call for solidarity, stood alongside hundreds of Tribes and tens of thousands of water protectors from around the world in nonviolent resistance at Standing Rock. 

This jury verdict is not confined to targeting Greenpeace—it is an attack on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and the right to protest. It is an attack on Indigenous sovereignty. It is an attack on the collective ability to resist environmental destruction and corporate crimes. 

This verdict is a troubling reminder of the urgent need to defend democracy, free speech, and the right to a livable planet across the globe. The fact remains no lawsuit can extinguish the power of just collective action.

.