'The Forests Are Facing Extinction; the Ecosystem Is in Peril': Madras High Court Issues Sweeping Ban and Enforcement Directives to Combat Plastic Waste in Western Ghats
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has directed the State Government to implement with immediate effect a region-wide ban on specified single-use plastic items in the Western Ghats. The Court declared that the existing governmental prohibition must be enforced in totality across ecologically fragile hill areas including the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal. In its final order, the Court mandated comprehensive enforcement involving transport restrictions, packaging norms, and waste management protocols, coupled with public participation and monitoring frameworks. A deadline of June 2025 was set for submission of a detailed status report on compliance.
The matter was brought before the Court through two writ petitions filed in public interest. The petitions sought enforcement of an existing Government Order—G.O. Ms. No. 84 dated 25.06.2018—issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which had imposed a State-wide ban on “One-Time Use and Throwaway Plastics” effective from 01.01.2019. The prohibition extended to plastic carry bags, cups, straws, plates, and similar disposable items.
The petitioners contended that although the ban was legally in force, its implementation had remained inconsistent in sensitive ecological zones like Nilgiris and Kodaikanal. They alleged ongoing violations involving the manufacture, transport, and use of banned plastic products within forest regions, biospheres, and tourist destinations. Reliance was placed on earlier judicial orders, including interim directions issued in W.P. No. 12898 of 2019, where the Court had already called for stricter enforcement mechanisms.
The submissions included documentary evidence, annexures, and photographic records indicating widespread non-compliance. These included images of plastic waste in forested trails, near water bodies, and within town centres of the hill districts. It was asserted that unchecked plastic use endangered biodiversity, disrupted wildlife habitats, and created long-term waste disposal challenges.
In response, the State Government acknowledged the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 84 under its statutory powers and submitted that enforcement measures were ongoing. Officials from the Departments of Environment, Municipal Administration, and Revenue had reportedly been deployed to conduct awareness drives and seize banned materials. Instances of fines collected and goods confiscated were cited as evidence of partial enforcement.
However, the State conceded that loopholes in coordination and gaps in execution had limited the effectiveness of the ban. It was admitted that despite formal instructions, illegal plastic transport continued via highways and entry points into the Nilgiris and Dindigul districts, particularly during high-tourist months. The Government accepted the need for a unified strategy.
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) also submitted a report, stating that closure notices had been served on violators under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Board cited inspections and legal action against manufacturing units dealing in banned materials.
In their rejoinder, the petitioners demanded a permanent enforcement system, including inter-departmental coordination, nodal accountability, and reporting mechanisms. They proposed specific steps such as mobile checkpoints, deposit return schemes for reusable items, and engagement with local manufacturers and vendors.
Based on the material placed and after hearing all parties, the Court proceeded to examine the legal framework, statutory obligations, and ecological sensitivities of the concerned region before issuing its ruling.
The Bench recorded at the outset that “it is not in dispute that certain plastic products have already been banned under G.O. Ms. No. 84, dated 25.06.2018… however, the same is not being implemented in true letter and spirit in the Nilgiris District and Kodaikanal area.”
The Court acknowledged the efforts undertaken by the Government but found them inadequate in terms of scale and coordination. It stated: “It is one thing to say that the ban is in force. It is another thing to effectively implement the same.”
In evaluating the ecological implications, the Court remarked: “It is common knowledge that both Nilgiris and Kodaikanal are part of the Western Ghats, which is declared as an ecologically sensitive zone. The presence of non-biodegradable plastic waste in such a fragile zone causes irreparable damage to the flora and fauna.”
Referring to the environmental degradation caused by tourism-related plastic use, the Court stated: “Tourists who visit the said places carry with them food items packed in plastic covers and plates, which they abandon after consumption. This adds to the unmanageable quantum of plastic waste in the hill areas.”
The Court held that “the issuance of the G.O. by invoking Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, casts a duty upon the State to ensure its compliance. The power under Section 5 is not ornamental but remedial in nature.”
On the need for a unified strategy, the Bench recorded: “It appears that the ban is being implemented in silos by the respective local bodies, and there is no cohesive monitoring mechanism which ensures that the banned items do not enter the protected zones.”
The Court noted with concern: “It is surprising that even after several years of the ban, no check posts have been set up to monitor the transportation of plastic products into the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal.”
It further stated: “The implementation cannot be the responsibility of the local bodies alone. The Departments of Police, Forest, Transport and Environment must work in tandem to realise the object of the prohibition.”
Citing constitutional duties, the Court held: “The State is under a constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. The citizens, too, have a fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment.”
In conclusion, the Bench remarked: “Unless compliance reports are called for and reviewed at regular intervals, the ban will remain only on paper.” It recorded: “It is time that the ban is taken to its logical conclusion. The law exists; what remains is its execution in true spirit.”
The Court ordered that “the manufacture, storage, supply, transport, sale, and distribution of the 28 items mentioned in paragraph No.9 above are banned throughout the Western Ghats, sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, starting from the Nilgiris up to the Agathiyar Biosphere in Kanyakumari District.”
The State Government was directed to issue a notification under Section 67(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that “no vehicle shall be used for the transport or distribution of banned items along the Western Ghats and Sanctuaries.”
Vehicles found transporting such items were to be “detained, and further action, as outlined in paragraph No.16 of this order—including the detention of the vehicle and prosecution—shall be taken.”
Shop owners and vendors were instructed to “cut open the packaging and transfer the contents to biodegradable paper covers, such as butter paper… or use natural products like leaf products, kora grass products, earthen products, etc.”
Local bodies were directed to “provide disposable paper covers for their use at no cost,” with expenses to be reimbursed from Green Funds. District Collectors and local authorities were to “identify the manufacturers of these products, conduct meetings with them, and develop schemes for returning these packaging materials for safe disposal.”
These actions were to follow the Solid Waste Management and Plastic Waste Management Rules. A funding scheme involving manufacturers was to be developed. The Court mandated the “availability of drinking water through ATMs, R.O. plants, and other methods” to reduce reliance on plastic bottles. A “Deposit Return System” was ordered for reusable items, with refundable deposits of Rs. 20 or Rs. 50.
Tourist kits under the “Meendum Manjappai” scheme were encouraged, including cloth bags, cutlery, and reusable containers. The Court proposed a mobile app or website “with the involvement of the local community and business people” to guide users on eco-tourism infrastructure.
Awareness centres were to be established every 2 km at all entry points, especially before Nilgiris and Kodaikanal, to “guide, warn, and check tourists for plastic items.” Mandatory entry checks and collection of fines were to be enforced “without exception at all times.”
A “Vendor Responsibility Scheme” was directed to be implemented to engage retailers in the clean-up effort and educate customers. Solid waste was to be “collected, crushed, and supplied to appropriate agencies for recycling” in a scientific and planned manner.
Lastly, the Court directed that “the concerned respondents shall comply with the respective directions and ensure a status report is filed on 06.06.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.V. Suresh Kumar, M/s Genicon & Associates
For the Respondents: Dr. T. Seenivasan, Mrs. A. Sri Jeyanthi, Mr. R. Srinivas, Mr. K. Madhan, Mr. V. Chandrasekaran
Amicus Curiae: M/s T. Mohan, Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Mr. C. Mohan, Mr. Rahul Balaji
Case Title: G. Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case Number: W.M.P. No. 15112 of 2019 in W.P. No. 15120 of 2019
Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
[Read/Download order]
