ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

Mahabharata describesh the Divine Being saying, “The mountains are his bones. The earth is his fat and flesh. The oceans are his blood. Space is his stomach. The Wind is his breath. Fire is his energy. The rivers are his arteries and veins. Agni and Soma, otherwise called the Sun and the Moon, are called his eyes. The firmament above is his head. The earth is his two feet. The cardinal and subsidiary points of the horizon are his arms,” This is narrated by Bhishma in conversation with Yudhishthira by referring to the reply of Rishi Bhrigu to sage Bharadwaja. This verse occurs in the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata.

Remembering the sacrifice of Ganga Putra Swami  Nigamanand of Matri Sadan Ashram, Haridwar who sacrificed his life in a prolonged fast, to ensure the aviralta and nirmalta of Mother Ganga, is also about remembering the ongoing mutilation of the veins and arteries of the rivers in general and Ganga in particular. Rivers shape the terrain and lives of people by its waters which are always in a dynamic state. Breaking this dynamic would unleash forces of uncontrolled change and invite the ‘law of unintended consequences’. It shows how donors of parties refuse to learn from the terrible Aral Sea disaster caused by the mistakes of Soviet Union in which two Siberian rivers were diverted.

In 2011, Swami Nigamananda  undertook a fast unto death demanding an end to illegal sand mining in the Ganga, at least in Haridwar where the Kumbh Mela, a mass Hindu pilgrimage, takes place. Both Union and Uttarakhand governments paid no heed. He died after fasting for 115 days. Swami Nigmananda (34), who had fasted for almost four months to protest illegal mining and stone crushing along the Ganga near Haridwar died at the Himalayan hospital in Jollygrant in Dehradun on June 13, 2011. He was born in Ladari, Darbhanga on August 2, 1976. 

Dinesh C. Sharma, noted science editor of Mail Today had pointed out that the pathological report of Swami Nigamanand's serum sample showed evidence of organophosphate poisoning. The cholinesterase serum test is usually done to measure exposure to organophosphate insecticides. In the case of Swami Nigamanand, doctors recommended it when his aides reported signs of poisoning. The case was investigated by the CBI. The CBI's closure report dated December 2011 did not satisfy Matri Sadan Ashram. There was an inquiry by a medical board as well. 

Swami Nigamananda had been on a fast since February 19, 2011 and was forcibly taken to a local hospital in Haridwar on April 27, 2011 when his condition worsened after days of fasting. He was transferred to the Himalayan hospital in Jollygrant after that he went into a coma and subsequently died. 

Swami Nigamananda's followers had asked for a CBI probe into his death alleging that he was poisoned. 

Whenever there is conflict between financial gains and rivers, the latter must get priority over monetary benefits because by any yard stick economic value of a free flowing river is bigger than dammed and mutilated rivers.  The capitalist, communist and colonial legacy of treating rivers as material flow that flow through pipelines must be abandoned and rivers must be treated as living beings that nourished our civilization for centuries and can nourish all the coming generations if cannibalistic tendency of diverting waters in bottles, dams and banks is stopped.

With regard to pollution in rivers, if Prime Minister and chief ministers of Ganga river basin states can demonstrate their political will and sensitivity environmental health by stopping all the effluents and sewage from entering into river streams through a single executive decision, they would do an exemplary act of arresting ecological collapse, preventing ecocide and for safeguarding the quality of blood flowing in veins and arteries of the present and future generations. The issue quality and quantity of water in the rivers is linked because whenever there depletion of water flow in the river, quality of river water deteriorates. Therefore, how can depletion of river flow through dams on Ganga which results in deterioration of quality of water in Ganga be deemed defensible.

Governments have abandoned the holistic Ganga river basin approach and adopted a narrow Ganga river approach as if the river is only  a pipeline of water.

Whither Ganga River Basin Approach

While the commercial benefits of damming rivers has been talked about a lot, the in-stream and off stream monetary and non-monetary benefits and advantages of flowing rivers has not been assessed so far. Does basin approach mean undertaking that assessment?

The declaration of Ganga River Basin Authority as part of Third Phase of Ganga Action Plan (GAP-III) in the aftermath of the acknowledgment by the Prime Minister's Office saying, "there is a need to replace the current piecemeal efforts taken up in a fragmented manner in select cities with an integrated approach that sees the river as an ecological entity and addresses issues of quantity in terms of water flows along with issues of quality" was long due. But that positon has been abandoned by the government which launched the Fourth Phase of Ganga Action Plan (GAP-IV).

Notably, National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) was registered as a society on August 12, 2011 under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It used to act as the implementation arm of National Ganga River Basin Authority(NGRBA) which was constituted under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986. The prrsent government dissolved  NGRBA with effect from October 7, 2016 and constituted National Council for Rejuvenation, Protection and Management of River Ganga (National Ganga Council) vide notification no. S.O. 3187 (E) dt. October 7, 2016 under EPA 1986. 

It envisages five tier structure at national, state and district level to take measures for prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution in river Ganga and to ensure continuous adequate flow of water so as to rejuvenate the river Ganga. 

The structure is as under 

1. National Ganga Council under chairmanship of Prime Minister of India

2. Empowered Task Force (ETF) on river Ganga under chairmanship of Union Minister of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation

3. National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG)

4. State Ganga Committees and 

5. District Ganga Committees in every specified district abutting river Ganga and its tributaries in the states

NMCG has a two tier management structure and comprises of Governing Council and Executive Committee. Both of them are headed by Director General, NMCG. Executive Committee has been authorized to accord approval for all projects up to Rs 1000 crore. Similar to structure at national level, State Programme Management Groups (SPMGs) acts as implementing arm of State Ganga Committees has been constituted. These institutions attempt to bring all stakeholders on one platform to take a holistic approach towards the task of Ganga cleaning and rejuvenation. 

The Director General of NMCG who met Sant Atmabodhananda on May 4, 2019 is a Additional Secretary in Government of India. For effective implementation of the projects under the overall supervision of NMCG, the State Level Program Management Groups are headed by officials of the Ganga river States.

Like the earlier phases of Ganga Action Plan, the fourth phase too has failed. The river basin approach affects the quality of surface water, ground water and the survival of natural flow of the rivers in the basin but it was never adopted in practice. 

The GAP-I, which was to be completed by March 1990 was extended till March, 2000 when it was declared complete but Phase I of the Plan was not yet fully complete and GAP-II which was to be completed in 2001 was extended till December 2008. This too remained incomplete.

The empty official, ceremonial and ornamental status being accorded to Ganga has become routine.

Even the River Basin approach applied to only 79% of Ganga basin, which is in India. It does not include 13 % of Ganga basin that is in Nepal, 4 % in Bangaldesh and 4 % in Tibet, China. It did not factor in  its relationship with the river systems and with the composite Ganga-Brahmputra-Meghna basin.

The question as to how does Ganga river basin approach affect the policies of Industry, Power, Agriculture, Urban Development, Health and Environment by the central government, the governments of eleven states (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), the neighboring countries and industry bodies like CII/FICCI/ASSOCHEM/PHCCI is yet to be addressed.

What is the relevance of Ganga River basin approach when the river channel has been amputated from the flood plains besides the amputation of the river channel itself?

The following are the biggest threats to Ganga basin basin which have been ignored:-

a. Interlinking of Rivers project including Ken-Betwa project;

b. UP’s Ganga Expressway project;

c. Uttarakhand’s Bhairon Ghati, Loharinag-Pala, Pala Maneri and Maneri Bhali hydro-projects

d. Some 191 heavily polluting industries in the Ganga basin states;

e. West Bengal’s Farraka Barrage;

f. Bihar’s Interlinking of Rivers project or Kosi High Dam; 

g. Pollution from “Religious” Activities;

h. Corporate funding of political parties;

i. Ganga water ways project; and 

j.  Nuclear power plants in the Ganga basin both in India and Bangladesh

A Policy Brief entitled "Diverse Notions of Justice and Security: A Preliminary Inquiry into Water Justice and Security in Himalayan Nuclear Ecosystem" makes a case for an UN Treaty  on Prohibition of Nuclear Reactors after entry into force of UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, to prevent ecocide. Notably, on June 24, 2025, Union Power Minister Manohar Lal announced the establishment of the first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in Bihar at the Power Ministers’ Conference. In a related development on June 12, 2026, villagers prevented a team from entering the village to conduct soil testing for the proposed nuclear power plant on 1400 acres of land in Raghunathpur Panchayat, Belhar, Banka, Bihar in Chandan river watershed of Ganga river basin. 

The Adivasi villagers staged a protest, using traditional weapons and drums. For the past few months, investigations have been underway to establish a nuclear power plant in Letwa, Kathara, Dubraj, Kendua-Jharna, Maltaria, and Neemtad, located in Raghunathpur Mouza of Raghunathpur Panchayat, Belhar Block, Banka. As part of this investigation, a team arrived in the village on June 12, 2026 to conduct soil testing at various locations. Upon learning of this, hundreds of men, women, children, and elderly villagers prevented the team from entering the village and turned them back. Notably, Sanjay Kumar Jha, had asked the Prime Minister Minister as to whether Government intends to support setting up of Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) in Bihar; and (b) the approximate cost of installing SMRs in Bihar and the number of households that will be provided electricity by small reactor. Responding to it, on July 24, 2025, Dr. Jitendra Singh, Union Minister in Prime Minister’S Office informed Rajya Sabha that "An estimate prepared based on the experience of setting up of 220 MWe plants indicate that the overall cost for the lead unit of 200 MWe Bharat Small Modular Reactor (BSMR-200) will be about Rs.5750 Crores." 

Dainik Bhaskar, Prabhat Khabar and Hindustan reported about the protest against the proposed nuclear power plant. It is not clear as to whether approval for the proposed plant has been sought from National Ganga Council like National River Conservation Directorate. 

Given the poor track record of the National Ganga Council like National River Conservation Directorate, it would be naïve to believe that the disastrous threats will be identified and mitigated. If the Ganga basin approach is indeed adopted then as per Comptroller Auditor General (CAG)'s audit reports, there is a need to strengthen the environmental clearance process emanating which has consistently been weakened. And enthusiasm about mega projects like Ganga Waterway and 'interlinking of rivers' scheme must factor in the fact that Ganga is more important than development and the ecological entity of the river basin is non-negotiable.

What can be done even under current scheme of things is to review and reverse the policies like Indian Energy Policy because they wete formulated when basin approach was not adopted. Consequently, fragmented river valley project specific clearances are given without any considered sensitivity towards the environmental health of the river ecosystem. An environmental audit of all the industrial activities in the Ganga basin is a must because auditing and accounting are inextricably interlinked, the important pre-requisite for effective environmental auditing is sound environmental accounting.

Data on environmental costs and liabilities can be used for better decision making relating to usage of alternative raw materials, consumption of utilities like water and power, choice of processing technology based on environmental cost of treating discharge into water, adverse environmental aspect and impact on flora fauna and human beings and treatment of byproducts.

In the face of limitations encountered by National Water Quality Assessment Authority, one of the immediate need of the basin is to take urgent steps to restore the water quality by seeking Zero tolerance towards hazardous chemicals, waste water and depletion in the natural flow due to uncalled for hydro projects adversely affects the water quality.

Infact like previous governments, the prrsent government too has failed to appreciate that water quantity, water quality and land building are inherently linked. Depletion of water quantity leads to deterioration of water quality.  Embanking, diverting and damming of rivers prevents rivers to perform its natural function of land building.The entire Indo-Gangetic plains have been built by river's natural geological function. It is evident that economic planning in Ganga basin is against the water cycle-it is unscientific. Those who accept this situation in a business as usual manner are complicit in what has been termed as The Economics of Innocent Fraud.

Through their sacrifices saints like Baba Nagnath, Swami Nigmanand, Prof. G. D. Agarwal (Swami Sanand) and Sant Atmabodhanand are constantly reminding us of the Tamil proverb saying that "Sea begins in the mountains"-water cycle itself is a living entity. Such struggles and sacrifices merits the salute of not only the sons and daughters of Ganga but also of the entire humanity. 

As long as Ganga's Aviral (unimpeded flow) is impeded such struggles must continue in myriad forms to safeguard the natural right of the river for the benefit of present and future generation of humans and non-human living species.

Dr. Gopal Krishna

(The author was a co-petitioner in National Green Tribunal on the subject of environmental impact of Ganga Waterways project along with Prof. Bharat Jhunjhunwala.  He is a critic of greed for water grid and data grid driven ecocide. He is a practicing advocate and a researcher of philosophy, mass communication and law. His current work is focused on the philosophy of digital totalitarianism and monetisation of nature. He has appeared before the Supreme Court's Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislations on nuclear damage, consumers, land acquisition, biological diversity, finance, hazardous waste trade, water cycle and corporate crimes. He is an ex-Fellow, International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC)-University of Potsdam, Germany. He is a member of Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (MCRG). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)

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.