Developed countries indulging in "waste colonialism" by shipping toxic waste to developing nations: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently deprecated the practice of developed countries dumping/ shipping toxic, hazardous or undesirable solid waste to developing nations [Sripathi Papers Vs Commissioner of Custom].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the same amounts to “waste colonialism” and passed a direction to send back illegally imported municipal solid waste to the country from where it was sent.

“The phenomenon, often described as ‘waste colonialism’, refers to the practice whereby developed countries, either directly or through unscrupulous exporters, seek to shift the burden of disposal of hazardous, toxic or other undesirable waste to developing nations,” the Court observed.

The Court said such practices undermine environmental justice. They also pose a serious threat to public health and ecological security, the judge underscored.

The Court was dealing with petitions filed by two Sivakasi-based paper companies, Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited and Rajarajeswari Krafts Private Limited, seeking permission to send illegally imported municipal solid waste to a UAE, an unrelated third country.

Both companies had imported consignments declared as waste paper. However, inspections by Customs authorities and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board revealed that the containers held municipal solid waste.

This included used PET bottles, street sweepings, food-paper waste, plastic parcels, broken glass bottles, plastic containers and soft-drink cans.

The Customs authorities confiscated the goods. They directed that the consignments be re-exported to the countries from where they had originated.

The petitioners later sought permission to re-export the goods to Dubai. They said this would reduce transportation costs. They also relied on communications from their foreign suppliers asking that the goods be sent to Jebel Ali Port.

The Court rejected the request.

It held that the word “re-export” under Rule 15(2) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 means sending the waste back to the country from where it was exported to India.

It does not mean sending the waste to any third country chosen by the importer, the Court said.

“One illegality cannot be rectified by facilitating another,” the Court observed.

The Court also relied on the Basel Convention. It noted that the international framework requires illegal waste traffic to be returned to the State of export.

The Court said the petitioners could not avoid that obligation by calling the Dubai route a private arrangement with their exporters.

“It is cannot be termed as a request or arrangement between the importer and its exporter, but a conspiracy,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the alternative plea to dispose of the consignments within India.

The petitioners had sought permission to process the waste through recycling, cement kilns, waste-to-energy facilities or other authorised agencies.

The Court said this prayer was misconceived.

It held that the statutory framework was meant to ensure that India does not become a destination for waste generated elsewhere.

“Any such prayer to make this great country as the ‘disposal destination’ should be held against not only the sovereignty of the Country but would be offensive of the basic right to life of every citizen, the ecosystems of this Country,” the Court said.

The Court also noted that India already generates more than 1.7 lakh tonnes of municipal solid waste every day.

It said the country is already struggling with scientific collection, segregation, treatment and disposal of waste.

Therefore, the Court questioned the business model of importing waste paper from foreign countries when recyclable waste paper is available within India.

The Court disposed of the petitions with directions to re-export the consignments to the countries of origin.

It also imposed costs of ₹10,000 each.

The petitioners were represented by advocate Hari Radhakrishnan

Senior Standing Counsel R Gowri Shankar appeared for the Customs authorities and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Advocate Madhuri Donti Reddy appeared for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

Advocate P Giridharan appeared for Maerskline India.

Deputy Solicitor General K Govindarajan appeared for the Union government.

[Read Judgment]