Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. on November 29 took note of the prolonged non-implementation of environmental compensation under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, in a writ petition challenging the continued collection of user fee for plastic waste from the public while producers, importers and brand owners allegedly failed to discharge their statutory obligations. Observing that no environmental compensation had yet been collected or utilized in Kerala, the Court called out the inaction of the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. It directed the Central Pollution Control Board to file an affidavit stipulating a definite time limit within which the mechanism for assessment, collection and utilization of environmental compensation will be operationalised.

The writ petition is filed by a Kerala resident against the Union of India, the Central and State Pollution Control Boards and State authorities, questioning the continued collection of user fee from the public for plastic waste management. The petitioner states that user fee is being taken from citizens while producers, importers and brand owners placing plastic packaging on the market have not set up the required collection and segregation systems, waste collection points and material recovery facilities.

Also Read: CGST | Department Must Proceed Against Supplier Before Issuing Section 73 ITC Mismatch Notice To Recipient: Kerala High Court

Invoking the statutory framework, the order notes that the Central Government, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, framed the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. Rule 9 and Schedule II specify the obligations of producers, importers and brand owners, while Rule 18 enables environmental compensation to be levied on non-compliant entities in accordance with guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board, revised in August 2024 and governing assessment and utilisation of such amounts. Affidavits filed by the central and state boards state that, despite this framework, environmental compensation has not been collected in Kerala and no expenditure has been incurred from such funds. The Central Board cites pending internal procedures and the State Board the absence of finality at the Central Board’s end, and the petitioner contends that the continuing delay undermines the purpose of the environmental compensation mechanism.

The Court recorded the statutory basis for environmental compensation under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, stating that Rule 18 “provides for the imposition of environmental compensation” and that it must be levied “based upon polluter pays principle, on persons who are not complying with the provisions of these rules.” The Court noted that Rule 9 specifies the responsibilities of producers, importers, and brand owners introducing plastic packaging into the market, and referred to the revised 2024 guidelines, which “specified for each of the violations” the amount of compensation payable. Clause 6.0 of the August 2024 guidelines was quoted, recording that funds collected “shall be kept in a separate Escrow account” and “utilized in collection, recycling and end of life disposal of uncollected and non-recycled… plastic packaging waste.”

The Court recorded that “despite the provisions regarding environmental compensation having been introduced as far back as 2016, not a single paise has been collected” for utilisation in restorative measures. It noted the CPCB’s explanation that non-collection was due to “pendency of internal administrative procedures, such as awaiting responses from manufacturers and producers.” It further recorded that KSPCB stated that, due to lack of finality at CPCB, “the State has not been able to collect the environmental compensation.” The Court observed that, as a result, “the burden of such measures falls on the citizens – taxpayers, sparing the offenders.”

The Court stated that while “a robust mechanism is necessary” given the scale of affected producers and manufacturers, the process “cannot continue at its present leisurely pace.” It stated that environmental compensation represents a statutory recognition of “the ‘polluter pays’ principle which is one of the basic principle of environmental jurisprudence.” It also recorded the petitioner’s submission that the delay “tends to defeat the very object of the provision and delays in accruing to the benefit of the offenders.”

Also Read: Work-From-Home Status No Basis To Prefer One Parent For Child Custody; Supreme Court Dismisses Mother’s Appeal In Child Custody Revision Case

The Court directed the Central Pollution Control Board “to place on record an affidavit before the time limit within which the internal procedures, as stated in the affidavit, will be finalized, so that the regime of environmental compensation can be put into effect at the earliest.” The affidavit must be filed by “a senior officer of the Central Pollution Control Board.”

“If the Court finds that the time frame stipulated therein is not reasonable, the Court may direct a binding time limit.” The matter is posted on “15 December 2025.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s. K.K. Unni (Ezhumattoor) and Prafin Joseph Zacharia, Advocates

For the Respondents: Sri. S. Biju, Sri. M. Ajay, Sri. T. Naveen

Case Title: Gigi John v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 35600 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.