1. Non-compliance with court orders by government ministries — ship-breaking decontamination requirements — determination of hazardous nature of imported materials. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 825
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu : V.N.Khare
Research Foundation For Science
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 657 of 1995
Date of Decision : 4/20/00
Important Points
The court affirmed that government agencies must comply with judicial orders or face costs, and emphasized that environmental protection requires the decontamination of ships before import and scientific verification of materials to identify hazardous waste.
Subject
Environmental Law - Pollution Control
Headnote
(A) Environmental Law - Compliance with Court Orders - Non-compliance by government ministries with judicial directions - Grant of extension of time to file affidavits subject to payment of costs - Costs to be recovered from officers responsible for non-compliance. (Para 1)
(B) Ship-breaking - Decontamination - Ensuring ships are properly decontaminated before being imported for ship-breaking - Matter referred to a high power committee for consideration and report. (Para 2)
(C) Hazardous Waste - Material Examination - Contention regarding whether imported material is hazardous - Direction for scientific testing and filing of a report. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The matter involves concerns regarding environmental safety and the import of materials. There was noted non-compliance by government ministries regarding directions to file affidavits. Further, issues were raised regarding the necessity of decontaminating ships before they are imported for ship-breaking and disputes over whether certain imported materials are hazardous.
Findings of Court:
The court found that government ministries had failed to comply with previous orders due to a lack of coordination. It granted a two-month extension for the filing of affidavits but imposed monetary costs on the ministries. The court further directed that materials regarding ship decontamination be forwarded to a high power committee and that disputed imports be scientifically examined to determine their hazardous nature.
Issues: Whether government ministries complied with court orders; whether ships imported for breaking must be decontaminated; and whether specific imported materials are hazardous.
Ratio Decidendi: State agencies are required to adhere to judicial timelines and directions; failure to do so justifies the imposition of costs to ensure accountability. Environmental safety mandates the decontamination of ships before import and the scientific verification of materials to prevent the introduction of hazardous waste.
Result: Extension of time granted for filing affidavits and reports subject to costs; direction for testing of materials; listed for further orders.
(B) Ship-breaking - Decontamination - Ensuring ships are properly decontaminated before being imported for ship-breaking - Matter referred to a high power committee for consideration and report. (Para 2)
(C) Hazardous Waste - Material Examination - Contention regarding whether imported material is hazardous - Direction for scientific testing and filing of a report. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The matter involves concerns regarding environmental safety and the import of materials. There was noted non-compliance by government ministries regarding directions to file affidavits. Further, issues were raised regarding the necessity of decontaminating ships before they are imported for ship-breaking and disputes over whether certain imported materials are hazardous.
Findings of Court:
The court found that government ministries had failed to comply with previous orders due to a lack of coordination. It granted a two-month extension for the filing of affidavits but imposed monetary costs on the ministries. The court further directed that materials regarding ship decontamination be forwarded to a high power committee and that disputed imports be scientifically examined to determine their hazardous nature.
Issues: Whether government ministries complied with court orders; whether ships imported for breaking must be decontaminated; and whether specific imported materials are hazardous.
Ratio Decidendi: State agencies are required to adhere to judicial timelines and directions; failure to do so justifies the imposition of costs to ensure accountability. Environmental safety mandates the decontamination of ships before import and the scientific verification of materials to prevent the introduction of hazardous waste.
Result: Extension of time granted for filing affidavits and reports subject to costs; direction for testing of materials; listed for further orders.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Inter-ministerial blame for non-compliance — requirement for ship decontamination prior to import — contention that imported materials are non-hazardous. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
3. Government ministries failed to comply with court orders despite inter-departmental correspondence — decontamination of ships is under consideration by a high power committee. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Costs may be imposed on government ministries for failure to comply with court orders. (Para 1 )
5. Extension of time granted to ministries subject to costs — directions to forward affidavits to committee — extension of report deadline — order to test imported material. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 )
6. What is the court's approach to non-compliance with orders by government ministries?
The court may grant extensions of time to enable compliance but can impose costs on the defaulting ministries, which the ministries may recover from the responsible officers. (Para 1 )
7. How is the issue of ship decontamination before import being addressed procedurally?
The court directed the Union of India to forward relevant affidavits and petitioner comments to a High Power Committee for consideration and report. (Para 2 )
8. What is the procedure when the hazardous nature of imported material is disputed?
The court may direct the Union of India to have the material examined and file a report on the findings by a specified date. (Para 6 )
(1) BETWEEN the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Environment, order passed by this Court on 7/2/20001, which in fact required compliance with this Courts earlier order of 10/12/1999, has not been complied with. As is usually the case with the Union of India, an extension of time by two months to enable the Ministry of Labour to file the affidavit is prayed for. In the application (IA No. 13), the blame is sought to be put on the Ministry of Environment for not supplying the necessary particulars. Be that as it may, it is quite evident that between these two Ministries except for exchange of correspondence nothing else has happened and the orders of this Court remain uncomplied with. In the interest of justice, we grant two months time from today to enable the Ministry of Labour to file the affidavit subject to the condition that the Ministry of Environment as well as the Ministry of Labour will each pay Rs. 10,000.00 as costs. In the first instance, costs will be deposited by the Ministries concerned which will be at liberty to recover the same from such officers who are responsible for non-compliance with this Courts orders. IA No. 13 stands disposed of.
(2) WITH regard to ship-breaking at Alang, affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur on behalf of the Central Pollution Control Board has been filed. In response to that, the petitioner has filed an affidavit on 15/4/2000 supporting the stand taken by CPCB. The contention is that steps should be taken to ensure that ships which came to India for ship-breaking should be properly decontaminated before they are exported to India. This aspect is being considered by the High Power Committee. As such, the Union of India should forward to the High Power Committee the said affidavit of Shri Lalit Kapur as well as the said comments of the petitioner filed by way of an affidavit of Ms Shalini Bhutani for consideration and report by the High Power Committee. Needful be done by the Union of India within four weeks from today.
(3) THE directions sought for by the affidavit of Dr (Mrs) Indrani Chandrasekharan dated 29/3/2000 will be taken up for consideration after the compliance with the earlier orders requiring the filing of better affidavit. We expect the list of importers to be filed by the next date of hearing as had been directed by this Court.
(4) THE time which had been granted to the High Power Committee to submit its report is extended till 30/9/2000.
(5) LIST for further orders after two months. IA No. 3 in CA No. 7660 of 1997
(6) IT is the contention of Mr Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant(s) that the material which has been imported is not hazardous. The Union of India will get the said material examined and file a report by the next date of hearing. Test be carried out within six weeks. Copy of this IA be also given to Mr Sanjay Parikh who will be at liberty to file his response to this IA. List after two months.
