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

The Kerala High Court has held that a product classified as “compostable” under Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 cannot simultaneously be treated as “biodegradable,” either scientifically or legally.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...

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

Anamika MJ

Tags