Honorable Supreme Court of India dismisses the plea for Asbestos ban

Feb. 2, 2011 - PRLog -- New Delhi, 2011: The Honorable Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement dismissed a public interest litigation filed by an NGO stating that the petition lacked bona fide, was an abuse of the process of the Court and had been filed as proxy litigation for the purpose of achieving private interest. The court dismissing the PIL has also issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking it as to why a contempt of court proceeding be not initiated against it.



The NGO – Kalyaneshwari had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2004 with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Union of India and other respondent-States to immediately ban all uses of asbestos in any manner whatsoever. One of the respondents to the PIL, Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association had raised an objection with the court that the present Writ Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and has been instituted at the behest of a business rival.



The Hon'ble Court observed that "the present petition has been filed with the intention of creating impediment in the establishment and running of the industrial units in various States dealing with production or manufacture of asbestos in accordance with law and without infringing any right of others whatsoever"



The bench comprising Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia, Justice Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar has further stated that "States have taken different stands in their respective Affidavits.  However, all of them have stated that appropriate measures are being taken to ensure working of such units in accordance with law ".



The petitioner has made no effort to collect any information/data from various States as to whether the directions issued by the Court (in an earlier 1995 judgement) are being strictly implemented or not at all. On the contrary, it is the stand of the States as well as Union of India that the directions issued by this Court are being strictly adhered to. The parameters and norms have been specified and the industries using such raw materials as Chrysotile Asbestos are being constantly watched, in relation to all the functions of the factory, specially keeping in view the environment and health status of the workers and nearby residents.



Even subsequent to the filing of the present petition, the petitioner has not put in any effort to seriously rebut the averments made in various affidavits filed by the States.



The apex Court saw no reason as to why the Court should ban such an activity when admittedly large numbers of families are dependent upon such processes.  What has to be ensured is that proper precautions are taken.  What is required is better supervision and regulatory control rather than banning of the activity.  It is not for the Court to legislate and ban an activity under relevant Laws.



The concerned authorities under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act 1986 should ensure that all the appropriate and protective steps to meet the specific standards are taken by the industry before or at the time of issuance of environmental clearance.