The Gauhati High Court has delivered a significant clarification regarding India's single-use plastic regulations, stating that the prohibition is not absolute and specifically permits products manufactured from biodegradable or compostable plastics. This ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by eight manufacturers of disposable plastic items who were challenging certain provisions of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.
Court's Interpretation of Plastic Waste Management Rules
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury examined Rule 4(2)(b) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, which prohibits the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of specific single-use plastic commodities. The court noted that while this rule restricts items like plates, cups, glasses, cutlery, trays, and similar products, it does not apply to those made from compostable or biodegradable plastic materials.
The court explicitly stated: "The restriction on the manufacture of cups, plates, cutlery, etc., is not absolute and the only restriction which has been imposed under the Rules for ecological preservation is that the plastic used in such production should be compostable or biodegradable."
Petitioners' Arguments and Court's Response
The eight manufacturers, represented by advocate O P Bhati, argued that an absolute ban would be arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly since their products are recyclable and could be managed through existing waste systems. They contended that the rule unfairly targeted their businesses while allowing other similar or even non-recyclable plastics to continue in the market.
The petitioners further expressed concerns about the economic impact, suggesting that a complete ban would render their investments obsolete, potentially leading to plant closures, job losses for skilled and unskilled workers, and financial ruin without any transitional support or alternatives.
However, the court observed that the restriction is reasonable and does not violate the fundamental right to carry on trade or business. In its January 21 order, the court noted that since the petitioners' products were manufactured from biodegradable plastics, the rules did not adversely affect their business, leading to the closure of the petition as "academic."
Key Definitions and Environmental Considerations
The court's order provided important clarifications on terminology:
- Compostable Plastics: Plastics that undergo degradation by biological processes during composting to yield carbon dioxide, water, and other inorganic compounds, excluding conventional petro-based plastics, and do not leave visible, distinguishable, or toxic residue.
- Biodegradable Plastics: Plastics, other than compostable plastics, which undergo degradation by biological processes under ambient environmental conditions (terrestrial or in water) without leaving any microplastics, visible, distinguishable, or toxic residue.
The court emphasized that biodegradable plastics have no adverse environmental impacts when they adhere to Bureau of Indian Standards guidelines and are certified by the Central Pollution Control Board.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
This ruling provides crucial clarity for manufacturers, environmental regulators, and consumers regarding what types of single-use plastic products remain permissible under Indian law. By distinguishing between conventional plastics and those made from biodegradable or compostable materials, the court has created a pathway for environmentally conscious manufacturing while maintaining ecological preservation goals.
The decision also highlights the importance of proper certification and adherence to established standards for biodegradable plastics, ensuring that products marketed as environmentally friendly genuinely meet the necessary criteria for safe degradation without leaving harmful residues.
This clarification comes at a time when India continues to balance environmental protection with economic considerations, particularly for industries that provide employment and contribute to the manufacturing sector. The court's nuanced interpretation of the 2016 rules demonstrates how regulatory frameworks can evolve to accommodate technological advancements in materials science while maintaining environmental safeguards.
