Kerala High Court Slams Pollution Boards For Not Collecting Environment Compensation; Says Taxpayers Bear Burden Instead Of Offenders

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M issued the directive while hearing a petition in which one of the issues raised is with respect to imposition of environmental compensation.

The Bench noted that there is provision for imposition of environmental compensation under Rule 18 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules.

Rule 9 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules lay down the responsibility of producers, importers and brand owners who introduce any plastic packaging in the market. Guidelines have also been framed for assessing the environmental compensation to be levied for violations of the Rules. The amount of environmental compensation for each violation is mentioned under the revised 2024 guidelines.

The Court noted that the environmental compensation is credited into an escrow account which will be used towards the expenditure in restorative measures. However, it expressed concern over the non-collection of the fund, despite the rule being in place since 2016.

“Despite the provisions regarding environmental compensation having been introduced as far back as 2016, not a single paise has been collected in that to be utilized for restorative measures,” it observed.

The Court noted that despite clear provisions, particularly Rule 18 and Schedule II, neither the Central nor State Boards had initiated effective recovery.

CPCB stated that the pendency of internal administrative procedures, such as awaiting responses from manufacturers and producers to the show-cause notices issued to them lead to the non-collection of environmental compensation while the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) submitted that no action has been taken towards collection of compensation since the CPCB had not finalised the process.

The Court observed that this inaction meant restorative environmental measures were financed by taxpayers instead of violators.

“Therefore, the position as on today in the State of Kerala is that no environmental compensation is being collected. Consequently, it is not being utilized to implement restorative measures as contemplated under the Rules of 2016, and the burden of such measures falls on the citizens - taxpayers, sparing the offenders,” Court observed.

The Bench stressed that environmental compensation is a statutory recognition of the 'polluter pays' principle and hence the process for implementation cannot continue at a leisurely pace.

“Though it may be correct that a robust mechanism is necessary for the collection of environmental compensation as it affects a large number of producers and manufacturers, considering the purpose for which it is being collected, the process cannot continue at its present leisurely pace,” the Court added

It directed CPCB to file an additional affidavit specifying a definite time limit for completing its internal procedures and setting the environmental compensation mechanism into motion.

The affidavit must be submitted by a senior officer of the CPCB cautioning that if the timeline is not reasonable, the Court will impose a binding time limit.

The Case is posted for further consideration on 15 December.

Case Title: Gigi John v Union of India and Ors

Case No: WP(C) 35600/ 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Unni K K, Paraffin Joseph Zacharia

Counsel for Respondents: M Ajay (SC - CPCB), T Naveen (SC-KSPCB)