Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Tamil Nadu’s ban on plastic-coated reinforced paper cups as a reasonable environmental restriction, supported by expert material and practical recycling difficulties. It remitted the inclusion of non-woven bags to the Pollution Control Board for fresh consideration in light of amended central rules permitting regulated manufacture. Though prior hearing under Rule 4 was mandatory and absent, the particular pre-enforcement hearings, elapsed time and public interest did not justify invalidating the notification.
Issues
- Whether Tamil Nadu had power to impose the plastic-products ban and whether lack of prior hearing invalidated it.
- Whether the bans on reinforced paper cups and non-woven carry bags were proportionate restrictions.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The delegated power supported prohibition or regulation of the relevant products and industries for environmental protection. (¶ 32–34)
- Rule 4, Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986Prior hearing was mandatory, but the Court declined invalidation on these exceptional facts, considering hearings before commencement and public interest. (¶¶ 33, 37–41)
- Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), Constitution of IndiaThe paper-cup restriction was reasonable in the public environmental interest; the possibility of less restrictive regulation warranted reconsideration of non-woven bags. (¶¶ 43–46, 48–54)
- Rule 4(1)(j), as amended in 2021, Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016The central standard for non-woven carry bags, including the 60 GSM threshold, was material to fresh consideration by the State Board. (¶ 50–54)
- Section 16(g), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Directions under Section 5 of the Environment Act fell within the Tribunal’s appellate remit; its earlier maintainability refusal was questioned. (¶ 36)
Held
- The State possessed delegated authority to issue the ban under Section 5. Rule 4 required prior hearing, and the Court acknowledged that the requirement had not been met before the order was issued. (¶ 32–41)
- The appellants nevertheless presented representations and were heard before enforcement. In the peculiar circumstances, including elapsed time and likely environmental injury from interference, the procedural infraction did not require invalidation. This did not make prior hearing generally optional. (¶ 37–41)
- Reinforced paper cups were indiscriminately discarded, non-biodegradable by composition and difficult to collect, segregate and recycle. Expert material and the public-interest policy justified the restriction despite its effect on business. (¶ 43–46)
- Non-woven bags stood differently because of reuse, recyclability and variable composition, and had been included through a later clarification without similarly close committee scrutiny. Amended central regulation provided a reason to reconsider proportionality. (¶ 47–53)
- The paper-cup appeal was disposed of without interference. The non-woven-bag appeals were partly allowed with a direction to the Board to consider the matter afresh under the amended rules; no general exemption for those bags was granted. (¶ 53–54)
Result
Paper-cup appeal disposed of with the ban upheld. Non-woven-bag appeals partly allowed; Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board directed to reconsider their inclusion afresh in light of the amended 2016 Rules. No costs.