Kerala High Court Refuses Permission To Sell 'Compostable' Plastic Bottles At Sabarimala, Says They're Not Biodegradable

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were examining the legality of introducing PLA-based (polylactic acid) water bottles at Sabarimala.

The petitioner, Swami Saranam Enterprises engaged in the manufacture of plant-based compostable bottles and allied products argued that its bottles, branded “Bio Theertham,” are made from plant-based materials such as corn and sugarcane and are fully biodegradable or compostable. It sought permission from the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to sell packaged drinking water at Sannidhanam, citing environmental benefits and the need for safe drinking water for pilgrims.

The petitioner further contended that the materials sourced from the 7th respondent, Green Dot Bipak, carry certifications affirming their biodegradable nature, thereby positioning the product as an eco-friendly alternative to conventional plastic bottles.

The petition was opposed by multiple authorities including the Forest Department, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KPSCB), and the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB).

It was submitted that the introduction of any form of bottles, whether claimed to be biodegradable or otherwise, poses a serious threat to wildlife in and around the ecologically sensitive Sabarimala forest region.

The CPCB submitted that the polylactic acid (PLA), which forms the basis of the petitioner's product, falls within the category of “compostable plastic” under Rule 3(e) of the Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules, 2016, and not “biodegradable plastic” as defined under Rule 3(ac). It was emphasised that these are distinct statutory categories and cannot be used interchangeably to claim environmental compliance.

Both the Central and State Pollution Control submitted that the petitioner had not produced any certification issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in respect of the manufacture of compostable bottles either in the name of Swami Saranam Enterprises or under the brand name “Bio Theertham”, as mandated under the applicable rules.

After hearing the parties, the Court emphasized on the ecological and legal significance of Sabarimala and stated:

“The Sabarimala Sannidhanam, the sacred abode of Lord Ayyappa, sits at an altitude of approximately 914 metres above sea level, nestled within the folds of the Western Ghats mountain range….It is identified by Conservation International as one of the eight globally recognised hotspots of biological diversity — among the world's ten most species-rich and most threatened terrestrial ecosystems. Every species, every river, every hectare of forest within this landscape represents millions of years of evolution. Once lost, none of it can be restored. In short, Sabarimala is situated in one of the most ecologically fragile and biologically irreplaceable landscapes on earth.”

It further added that the Sabarimala Temple is situated within the Periyar Tiger Reserve and any activity within the reserved or protected forest that is not specifically authorized by the competent forest authority is prohibited by law. It further noted that Sabarimala and its surrounding areas are classified as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, hence attracts the highest standard of environmental protection recognised under the legal framework.

“Such classification is not merely declaratory in nature; it serves as a clear and unequivocal signal to all authorities—administrative, judicial, and regulatory—that the region demands the most stringent and vigilant protective measures.” Court added.

Upon establishing the ecological significance of Sabarimala, the Court examined whether a downstream seller of compostable plastic products rely on upstream raw material certification, or must it independently comply with certification requirements under the PWM Rules.

It further examined whether “compostable plastics” can be equated with “biodegradable plastics”.

The Court noted that the raw materials used by the petitioner in manufacturing bottles contains PLA and PBAT (Polybutylene Adipate-co-Terephthalate), which is compostible under industrial conditions and the finished product cannot be considered as a biodegradable plastic.

The Court drew a statutory line between compostable and biodegradable plastics under the PWM Rules. Under Rule 3(e), Compostable plastics require controlled industrial conditions to degrade while Biodegradable plastics under Rule 3(ac) must degrade naturally in environments like soil or water without leaving harmful residues.

The Court noted that the definition of biodegradable plastics expressly excludes compostable plastics.

“The opening words of Rule 3(ac) "plastics, other than compostable plastics" would mean that the legislature, while drafting the definition, deliberately and expressly excluded compostable plastics from the biodegradable plastics category. We are of the view that such exclusion was deliberate since scientifically compostable plastics (like PLA) do not meet the standard of degrading in natural environments like soil, freshwater, or marine settings.” Court observed.

The Court further noted that biodegradation does not require any form of industrial intervention as it is a process which occurs spontaneously upon exposure to natural microbial activity, which is not the case in the present instance.

“If a product is classified as compostable, it is, by definition, excluded from the category of biodegradable plastics. The petitioner, therefore, cannot employ both expressions interchangeably in respect of the same product. By asserting that the product is compostable under Rule 3(e), the petitioner has, in effect, placed it outside the ambit of biodegradable plastic as defined under Rule 3(ac).” Court held.

With regard to the certification, the petitioner argued that since its supplier (Green Dot Biopak) held CPCB certification for raw materials, no separate certification was required.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that certification is product-specific, not merely material-specific. The Court added that approval granted for carry bags and films cannot extend to bottles, which were not covered.

“The contention is that the petitioners are not 'manufacturing' compostable plastic but only converting a pre-certified material into a bottle and therefore the certification obligation under Rule 4(ha) does not apply to them. We are afraid that the said contention advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted.” Court held.

The Court further held that the term “manufacture” in Rule 4(ha) must be understood in a broader sense and is not confined to manufacturers alone.

“The term “manufacturer” in Rule 4(ha) must necessarily be understood in a broader, contextual sense — one that includes entities engaged in the manufacture of finished compostable plastic commodities….Rule 4(ha) is not confined to manufacturers alone; it explicitly mandates certification prior to “marketing or selling.” In other words the provision extends the regulatory obligation beyond production to the act of placing the product in the market.” Court held.

The Court also examined the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for separate certification pathways for manufacturers and sellers of compostable plastic products and noted that certain regulatory gaps must be corrected.

The Court noted that Schedule-II of PWM Rules contain guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Packaging and commodities made from compostable plastics or biodegradable plastics independently.

“The multi-stakeholder registration framework under Schedule II makes it clear that the PWM Rules are designed to impose distinct and independent obligations on every entity in the supply chain. It leaves no room for an interpretation that compliance by one entity can absolve or substitute the statutory obligations of another.” Court added.

The Court thus concluded that the framework is designed as a product-specific, entity-specific, point-of-sale safeguard, intended to ensure that only duly certified compostable plastic products enter the market, thereby protecting both the environment and the public from the risks associated with uncertified materials.

The Court emphasized that allowing uncertified products would create a regulatory vacuum, undermining environmental safeguards.

“This Court has, over the past decade and a half, developed a consistent and carefully structured legal framework to safeguard this ecologically sensitive region. That framework is grounded in statutory protections under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, and the Environment (Protection) Act, as well as in constitutional principles and established doctrines such as the Precautionary Principle. In the present case, the issue does not call for a balancing of competing interests. The ecological sensitivity of the region, the scale of potential harm, and the absence of compliance by the petitioner leave no room for dilution of the existing safeguards. The protection of the environment must prevail.” Court concluded.

It also flagged the risk such compostible plastic poses to wildlife, particularly elephants which are common in the area, as "an elephant cannot distinguish a PLA bottle from a PET bottle by sight or smell."

The Court said, "A PLA bottle or its fragments, once ingested, will remain structurally intact in the elephant's gastrointestinal tract for an indefinitely long period — causing obstruction, enteritis, perforation from sharp broken edges, and impaction...The petitioner's assurance that plant-based material is harmless to animals demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of animal physiology. An elephant's stomach does not function as an industrial composter."

The Court thus dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Swami Saranam Enterprises and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 42787/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 197

Counsel for Petitioners: M Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Bejoy Joseph P.J,Govind G Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny, P.M. Rajagopal

Counsel for Respondents: G. Biju (SC-TDB), K.A.Salil Narayanan, T. Naveen (SC-KSPCB), Reshmi K.M (Sr. GP)