IMPORTANT POINT
Once a substance is specified in the Schedule as contemplated u/s 3(e)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, then there is no power with the Central Government for cancelling the registration certificate issued in respect of the same substance even if on scientific study it appears that the substance in question is grossly detrimental to the human health. This is a lacuna in the legislation itself, and therefore, steps should be taken for appropriate amendment in the legislation.

Headnote:(i) Public Health-Constitution of India-Art. 32-Public Interest Litigation-Prayer to prevent, manufacture, production and use of 40 insecticides and/or additives which on account of their adverse effects on human health have already been banned in other advanced countries-Counter affidavits filed on behalf of different Ministries of Government-Sufficient steps have been taken to either ban or to allow restrictive use of these insecticides-However, there is no co-ordinated effort-A committee of four Senior Officers from four different Ministries involved should be constituted-Committee should have deliberations atleast once in three months and take suitable measures in future-Such a committee should be constituted by Cabinet Secretary within two months-Expression life in Art. 21 includes also health hazards from use of harmful drugs.
       Held : On examining the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the different Ministries of the Government it appears to us that though sufficient steps have been taken to either ban or to allow restrictive use of these insecticides but yet there is no co-ordinated effort and different Ministries of the Government of India are involved. It also further transpires that there has been no continuous effort to have research or to have minimum information about the adverse effects of the use of such pesticides and other chemicals as a result of which people at large of this country suffer to a great extent. As it is on account of lack of capacity of the people of the country to afford good and nutritious food, the average standard of human health is much below as compared to other advanced countries. In addition to that if insecticides and chemicals are permitted to be freely used in protecting the foodgrains and in increasing the agricultural production then that will bring insurmountable hazards to all those country-men who consume those food articles. To check these maladies what is essential for the Government of India is to have a co-ordinated and sustained effort. In this age of computerisation and inter-linking of the countries through interest it does not take more than a couple of minutes to gather the necessary information in respect of any particular insecticide or pesticide and how such commodities have been dealt with in other advanced countries. What is really essential is a genuine will on the part of the Administrative machinery and a conjoined effort of all the Ministries concerned. On the basis of the affidavits filed while we are satisfied that the different measures taken by the Central Government in totally prohibiting in some cases and in permitting restricted use in some other cases are adequate step from the health hazards point of view and no further direction is necessary to be issued in respect of the 40 items of insecticides and chemicals identified in the Petition filed. But we would direct that a Committee of Four Senior officers from the Four different Ministries involved should be constituted which Committee should have deliberations atleast once in three months and take suitable measures in future in respect of any other insecticides and chemicals which is found to be hazardous for health. (Para 6)
       (ii) Insecticides Act, 1968-Section 27(2)-Power of Central Government to cancel Certificate of Registration-Once a substance is specified in schedule as contemplated u/s 3(e)(i)-No power conferred upon Central Government for cancelling registration certificate issued in respect of same substance-Power of cancellation can be exercised only in respect of a preparation or formulation of substances specified in Schedule-Order cancelling petitioner s certificate in respect of formulations namely BHC 10 DP, BHC 50 WP-Sustainable-No jurisdiction with Central Government to cancel Certificate in respect of Benzene Hexachloride-Need for appropriate amendment to legislation.
       Held : The scheme of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is also an insecticide within the meaning of Section 3(e)(iii) the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and pending investigation into the matter can immediately prohibit sale, distribution or use and after further investigation can cancel the Certificate of Registration in respect thereof under sub-section (2) of Section 27. That being the position in exercise of such power under sub-section (2) of Section 27 a Certificate of Registration in respect of an insecticide under sub-section 3(e)(i) cannot be cancelled under sub-section (2) of Section 27. This is also in consonance with the logic that an insecticide which is the formulation of any one or more of the substances specified in the schedule and is consumer oriented power of cancellation of registration certainly has been conferred upon the Central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does not come to a consumer and is a substance specified in the schedule itself and therefore an insecticide under Section 3(e)(i), the power has not been conferred upon the Central Government since the specified substance in the schedule has been specified by the Parliament itself. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours we would hold that those of the Certificates of Registration granted to the petitioner in respect of any formulations namely BHC 10 DP and BHC 50 WP, the order of the Central Government cancelling Certificate of Registration is well within the jurisdiction and there is no legal infirmity in the same. But in respect of Benzene Hexachloride which is one of the substances specified in the schedule and as such is an insecticide within the meaning of Section 3(e)(i) there is no power with the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 27 to cancel the Certificate of Registration. (Para 16)
       Further held that once a substance is specified in the Schedule as contemplated under Section 3(e)(i) then there is no power for cancelling the registration certificate issued in respect of the same substance even if on scientific study it appears that the substance in question is grossly detrimental to the human health. This is a lacuna in the legislation itself, and therefore, steps should be taken for appropriate amendment to the legislation. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-On the basis of a letter by one Dr. Ashok addressed to the Chief Justice of India indicating therein that several insecticides, colour additives, food additives are in widespread use in this country which have already been banned in several advanced countries as it has been found that those insecticides are carcinogenus, this Court treated the letter as a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and took up the matter as a Public Interest Litigation. Notices were issued to the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, through Secretary, Ministry of Industry & Chemicals as well to Pesticides Association of India through its Secretary Shri H.S. Bahl and the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association. The Annexure to the said letter contained 21 chemicals and additives and a prayer was made that the respondents should be directed to ban forthwith the import, production, distribution, sale and use of the listed chemicals and articles so that the citizens will not be exposed to the hazards which the aforesaid insecticides/additives are capable of being caused. It was alleged generally in the Petition that food, water, air, drug and cosmetic contamination are the general results of the widespread use of the chemical in question and most of these chemicals have been banned in the United States of America and rest are in the process of being banned. Though initially the annexure to the letter contained only 21 items of insecticides and additives but by way of an application 19 other chemicals were added and thus in all the prayer of the petitioner is to prevent manufacture, production and use of 40 insecticides and/or additives. Counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of Secretary, Pesticides Association of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Director General of Health Services, President of the Chemical Industries Association, Madras. A supplementary affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Forest. A further affidavit was also filed in August 1989 by the Deputy Director General of Health Services giving the available information on the listed chemicals as to the carcinogenicity status on the basis of research carried out by the Indian Council of Chemical Research. It was indicated in the said affidavit that the benefits accrued as a result of use of chemicals should be weighed against anticipated risk and the whole issue be examined in totality before arriving at a conclusion. When the matter was heard on 24th September, 1996 this Court observed that there has been a time lag between the filing of the affidavits and the date of hearing of the Petition and there is no material on record to indicate as to whether any further steps have been taken with regard to the control of use of these harmful pesticides and chemicals and whether any further study has been made in that regard. The Union of India was, therefore, granted time to file a further detailed affidavit clarifying the entire position. When the case was taken up for hearing on 5th November, 1996 it transpired that no further affidavit has been filed pursuant to the earlier direction and therefore, the Court was constrained to pass an order requiring the officers of different Ministries involved to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing and required affidavit should be filed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Court an additional affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture on 18th November, 1996 stating therein the steps taken by the Government of India in prohibiting manufacture, import and use of certain chemicals and in permitting restricted use of certain other chemicals and insecticides. To the aforesaid affidavit a Notification dated 26th May, 1989 was annexed as Annexure I which Notification ind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 791

Cases Referred (6)