Tweet
Complete ban into force till endosulfan stock lasts
The ban on manufacture of controversial pesticide endosulfan became complete after the Supreme Court on Friday held that no form of the product will be manufactured in any part of the country.
While reviving the registration certificates of the pesticide manufacturers to the extent of allowing export against a pending export order of 1090.596 metric tonne (MT), the bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said, “We make it clear that our orders are limited to export quantity of 1090.596 MT and we make it clear that no manufacturer shall manufacture endosulfan in any form and to that extent our earlier order (imposing ban on endosulfan) stands.”
Allowing exports out of the existing stock of 1734 MT, the bench said, “Our concern is whether keeping the material in India will be riskier as we do not want people on our soil should suffer.” The petitioner Democratic Youth Federation of India, which had filed the PIL for banning endosulfan, objected to even export of the product.
Dealing with the objection on export, the bench said, “There are countries which are prepared to import. We have to protect Indian citizens. It is for the importing countries to decide what restrictions to put.”
But the court addressed the petitioner’s other concern to ensure that till the point of export at the port, no contamination should take place. To this effect, the bench directed each manufacturer to intimate the regional Commissioner of Customs of the place where the product is packaged. The officer accompanied with a top official of Insecticide Board and another from Ministry of Environment and Forests would inspect the package and seal it. On the consignment reaching the port of exit, the seal would be counter-checked and the goods lined for delivery.
The court, however, remained alive to the concern about the remaining amount of endosulfan stock lying with the manufacturers as also the quantity of raw material imported by them. While Kerala Government had invited a proposal from the Defence Research and Development organisation, the huge price quoted by them made the court wonder, “Who is prepared to foot the bill.”
Going by its past experience where toxic materials had to be environmentally destroyed, the bench said, “The cost of incineration worked out to be more than the cost involving the production.” However, the court decided to hear this issue on October 10.
While reviving the registration certificates of the pesticide manufacturers to the extent of allowing export against a pending export order of 1090.596 metric tonne (MT), the bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said, “We make it clear that our orders are limited to export quantity of 1090.596 MT and we make it clear that no manufacturer shall manufacture endosulfan in any form and to that extent our earlier order (imposing ban on endosulfan) stands.”
Allowing exports out of the existing stock of 1734 MT, the bench said, “Our concern is whether keeping the material in India will be riskier as we do not want people on our soil should suffer.” The petitioner Democratic Youth Federation of India, which had filed the PIL for banning endosulfan, objected to even export of the product.
Dealing with the objection on export, the bench said, “There are countries which are prepared to import. We have to protect Indian citizens. It is for the importing countries to decide what restrictions to put.”
But the court addressed the petitioner’s other concern to ensure that till the point of export at the port, no contamination should take place. To this effect, the bench directed each manufacturer to intimate the regional Commissioner of Customs of the place where the product is packaged. The officer accompanied with a top official of Insecticide Board and another from Ministry of Environment and Forests would inspect the package and seal it. On the consignment reaching the port of exit, the seal would be counter-checked and the goods lined for delivery.
The court, however, remained alive to the concern about the remaining amount of endosulfan stock lying with the manufacturers as also the quantity of raw material imported by them. While Kerala Government had invited a proposal from the Defence Research and Development organisation, the huge price quoted by them made the court wonder, “Who is prepared to foot the bill.”
Going by its past experience where toxic materials had to be environmentally destroyed, the bench said, “The cost of incineration worked out to be more than the cost involving the production.” However, the court decided to hear this issue on October 10.
