Back
Kerala High Court Passes Baton to ECI on PVC Flex Menace in Poll Season
In a swift move amid Kerala's assembly election buzz, the has disposed of a filed by the , directing the and the state's to address complaints over the rampant use of PVC flex banners and other non-eco-friendly materials in campaign ads. The of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the order on , in , recording assurances from ECI counsel that enforcement steps were already underway.
From Bans to Banners: Kerala's Plastic War Timeline
Kerala has been at the forefront of India's battle against plastic pollution, rolling out tough measures over the years. A government order kicked off the phase-out of non-recyclable plastics, followed by a ban on single-use items and explicit prohibitions on PVC flex for ads. Subsequent directives from , including those from the Local Self-Government and Environment Departments, mandated cloth or eco-alternatives, backed by circulars.
Yet, as polls loomed, the petitioner—a human rights NGO—flagged widespread defiance. Political parties, businesses, and even public bodies were allegedly flooding cities like Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Kochi, Thrissur, Kozhikode, and Kannur with PVC flex hoardings. Backed by photos (Exhibits P10-P11) and prior complaints to municipal corporations (P13-P18), the PIL invoked earlier rulings like and stressed the health hazards: non-recyclable PVC clogs landfills, leaches toxins into soil and water, and releases dioxins when burned, threatening ecosystems and public health.
The core questions: Were state authorities failing to enforce bans? Could judicial nudge ensure "green protocols" during elections, where ECI's aligns with these eco-rules?
Petitioner's Alarm vs. ECI's Assurance
argued violations mocked years of regulation. Citing studies from (P3) and GOs (P4-P9), they highlighted PVC's role in bioaccumulation and election-time waste spikes. Despite " " guidelines banning PVC, polyester, and similar fabrics, flex banners proliferated post-Model Code imposition, demanding urgent court intervention to avert "large-scale environmental damage."
Respondents, including state departments, pollution boards, and municipalities, faced the heat, but ECI's counsel countered decisively:
"Steps have already been taken for violation of the
in relation to the use, printing, storage and sale of PVC flex, polyester, nylon, Korean cloth and plastic-coated materials for advertisement campaigns in the State."
Court's Razor-Sharp Focus: No Deep Dive, Just Directive
The Bench kept it concise, perusing records and hearing counsel. No new precedents were dissected—reliance fell on existing GOs and ECI guidelines, distinguishing PVC's toxicity from permissible alternatives. The ruling sidestepped broader probes, trusting ECI's proactive stance while forwarding the petitioner's grievances for specific action.
Key Observations
"The grievance of the petitioner shall be looked into by respondents 10 and 11."
"The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 10 and 11 has submitted that steps have already been taken for violation of the..."
"In view of the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of."(Soumen Sen, C.J., )
Green Light for Enforcement: What It Means Going Forward
The PIL's disposal isn't dismissal—it's a targeted handover. ECI must now scrutinize complaints, potentially ramping up raids on printing units and campaigns. Practically, this reinforces Kerala's plastic-free push during high-stakes polls, nudging parties toward biodegradable options and setting a template for other states. Future cases might cite this for blending electoral oversight with environmental mandates, ensuring elections don't trash the planet.
