Open Access Research Article
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS OF HARMFUL PESTICIDES AND THE ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT: AN OVERVIEW
Published Paper
Article Details
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS OF HARMFUL PESTICIDES AND THE ROLE
OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT: AN OVERVIEW
AUTHORED BY
- MR. SANJAY H. UTAGI[1]
& PROF. (DR.) PRASHANT S. DESAI[2]
Abstract
The
right to a safe and healthy environment is a basic human right guaranteed by
the United Nations through various conventions and documents. It is also a
fundamental right guaranteed by the constitutions of various countries. In
India, the "Right to Safe Environment" is not expressly defined as a
fundamental right in the Indian Constitution. However, the right to a clean and
healthy environment is included as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right
to Life) of the Indian Constitution. It says that “No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by
law.” The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, gave environmental
protection constitutional status, by the introduction of Articles 48A and 51 A
(g). Furthermore, on many occasions, the judiciary has construed the right to a
safe and healthy environment as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution. As held in Chameli
Singh v. State of U.P.[3], any civilized
society that guarantees the right to live also guarantees the right to
food, water, a decent environment, shelter medical care, education, and all
other allied rights. However, these rights are being challenged by the rampant
and uncontrolled use of pesticides, which has posed a major threat to the
environment in the current century. In this regard, the author examines how the
right to a safe environment is being jeopardized by unprecedented pesticide
use, as well as the efforts made by the judiciary to protect it.
Keywords: Right to a Safe Environment, Human Health, Pesticide
Hazard
Introduction
In
recent years, environmental protection has gained tremendous momentum on a
global scale with rising pollution levels and global warming. As the negative
effects of pollution and hazardous practices become more apparent, the role of
the judiciary in protecting the environment has assumed critical importance. The pesticides, designed to
combat vermin and increase agricultural productivity, frequently pose
substantial risks to ecosystems, wildlife, and human health[4].
Pesticides, while serving their intended purpose of insect control, can have
severe environmental consequences. They can contaminate soil, water sources,
and the air, jeopardizing the delicate equilibrium of ecosystems and resulting
in the extinction of species. Pesticide exposure through the environment has
been linked to a variety of negative health effects in humans, such as
developmental disorders, hormonal imbalances, and an increased risk of cancer.
As a
result, today, the use of pesticides is one of the most pressing problems
facing the world, which has a detrimental effect on the environment and human
health. Governments have enacted various environmental laws and regulations to
regulate pesticide use to protect human health and the environment, and the
judiciary on the other hand has played an admirable role in enforcing and
interpreting these legal frameworks. Over the years, landmark cases have
influenced the judiciary's approach to pesticide-related issues and guided
environmental protection. Often, environmental advocates, affected communities,
agricultural industries, and government entities are at odds in these cases.
Recent years have witnessed the emergence
of judicial activism as a potent force in advancing environmental law and
resolving the challenges associated with pesticide exposure. The courts have
adopted a proactive stance by expanding legal standing, permitting litigation
in the public interest, and advocating the precautionary principle[5]. This judicial activism has
aided in raising awareness, stimulating public discourse, and shaping policies
that prioritize environmental and public health protection.
A Background of Pesticide Environmental Hazards
Pesticides
are the most effective tools for controlling pests in modern agriculture,
including insects, weeds, and fungi, to protect crops, livestock, and public
health. However, when pesticides are misused or improperly applied, they can
have several negative consequences, including irreversible environmental
damage. Excessive use of pesticides, unscientific use of pesticides, use of
pesticides in combination and use of banned pesticides are common
misapplications that cause serious negative effects on the environment, leading
to air and water pollution and land degradation. Pesticide pollution by more
than one active ingredient threatens 64% of agricultural land worldwide
(approximately 24.5 million square kilometres), with 31% at high risk.
Approximately 34% of high-risk areas are in high-biodiversity areas, 5% are in
water-scarce areas, and 19% are in low- and lower-middle-income countries[6].
When
pesticides are sprayed widely, they seep into the soil, contaminating
groundwater and reducing soil fertility. Pesticide runoff pollutes surrounding
lakes, ponds, and surface water. To control weeds and mosquitoes, local
governments also use pesticides and insecticides on ponds, riverbanks and other
water surfaces. During the use of these pesticides, harmful substances mix in
the ponds and atmosphere causing huge losses to the aquatic life and
environment. Furthermore, pesticides are supplied in plastic cans, bags,
pouches, etc. There are no proper guidelines on how to dispose of these bags
after the use of pesticides. Usually, these containers are dumped in water
bodies or on land or burnt, which will further affect the environment. After
being applied, some pesticides have the potential to evaporate or volatilize
into the atmosphere, which can travel great distances and result in air
pollution. As the pesticide is being applied, particularly in spray form, the
pesticide particles are being carried by the wind to unexpected locations.
Pesticides may end up deposition in the air and on surfaces distant from the
target site as a result of this. Pesticide residues are detected in air, soil and in almost
all the rivers of India and watersheds
in India have been identified as areas of high concern[7].
There
are many incidents of air pollution and soil erosion in India as a result of
the use of pesticides, causing loss of flora and fauna. Even after multiple
ministries and legislations, many cases of pesticides affecting human health
and the environment have reached the doors of the judiciary, the judiciary, on
the other hand, has always considered citizens health and safe environment as a
priority and ensured that citizens constitutional rights are well protected.
The Endosulfan case of Kerala is one such example where the Indian Judiciary
has played a decisive role in providing justice to the victims and protecting
the environment.
The Approach of
Indian Judiciary to Environmental Cases Involving the Effects of Pesticides
Union of India v. Union Carbide
Corporation[8]
(1989) is the first significant case of pesticide-related
environmental hazard in India to be reported. In December 1984, a
gas breach at the Union Carbide pesticide manufacturing unit in Bhopal, India,
caused the discharge of toxic methyl isocyanate gas, resulting in the Bhopal
gas tragedy, one of the world's worst industrial catastrophes. The catastrophe
resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and had severe effects on health and
the environment.
The
case involved legal proceedings for compensation and liability against Union
Carbide Corporation, the parent company of the Bhopal facility. In its ruling,
the Indian judiciary acknowledged the company's culpability for the calamity
and ordered Union Carbide to compensate the victims and implement the necessary
environmental remediation measures. In the review petition against
the same case, Union Carbide Corporation & Ors
vs Union of India & Ors[9] the
Hon’ble Supreme Court placed responsibility on the Union of India to take
appropriate medical group insurance cover in favour of victims from the General
Insurance Corporation of India or the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
Further, while deciding the curative petition in March 2023, filed by the
central government against the same case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the
Central government has not taken out the relevant insurance policies.
This
landmark case demonstrated the significance of holding corporations accountable
for their actions resulting in environmental and health consequences. In cases
involving environmental catastrophes caused by industrial activities, the court
emphasized the need for rigorous liability and corporate responsibility.
In another case, Dr. Ashok v. Union of India[10] one Dr. Ashok had
written a letter to the Chief Justice of India saying that India uses a lot of
pesticides, color additives and food additives which many developed countries
have already banned because they are known to cause cancer. Around 21 chemicals
were mentioned in the annexure submitted with the letter. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India treated this letter as a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India and took up the matter as a Public Interest Litigation.
At a later stage, a list of 19 more chemicals was submitted with a request to
the respondent i.e. the Central Government to immediately ban the import,
manufacture, distribution, sale and use of the listed chemicals, so as not to
expose the citizens to the potential hazards of the listed chemicals. Thus, the petitioner's overall request to ban
the manufacturing, import, distribution, or sale of insecticides stood
at 40. Furthermore, one more point was raised challenging the Central
Government's notification asking for the phase-out of the manufacturing and use
of Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) by revoking BHC registration certificates.
Considering the prayer of the petitioner, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the right to life includes all aspects of life
that make it meaningful, complete, and worthwhile to live. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court further observed that “the ecosystem is imbalanced due to uncontrolled
use of natural resources and hazardous chemicals, endangering human existence
and health. Excessive use of chemicals for agricultural production poses a
significant threat. Pesticide use significantly impacts the global environment,
exhibiting diverse behavioural patterns and modes of action, impacting man's
ecosystem and potentially contaminating the food chain. Developed countries ban
hard pesticides on crops while developing countries continue using them without
considering environmental side effects.” Hon’ble Supreme Court also highlighted
the lacuna in the present pesticide control law of India i.e. Insecticides Act,
1968.
In
Democratic Youth Federation of India vs Union of India and Ors.[11]
Endosulfan a highly toxic organochlorine pesticide that was extensively used
for agricultural purposes in India had caused a huge environmental disaster.
The aerial spray of Endosulfan, on cashew plantations in Kerala had severe
environmental and health consequences, contaminating soil, water bodies, and
vegetation, as well as causing fish mortality and food chain infiltration.
In
2011, in response to widespread protests and scientific evidence of the
pesticide's detrimental effects, a lawsuit in the public's interest was filed
before the Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered a
nationwide prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and use of endosulfan.
The judiciary recognized the right to a pure environment and the necessity to
safeguard human health and the ecosystem. Various directives were issued to the
State Governments and the Central Government to protect human health and the
environment due to the impacts of endosulfan. Recently, the court directed the
respondents to release un-disbursed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs each to affected
persons within three months. The State Governments were also asked to consider
providing medical facilities or treatment for life-long health problems arising
from endosulfan's effects. The court left it to the State Governments to
recover the compensation from the concerned industry.
The Judgement
of the endosulfan ban in India was a major victory for environmental justice.
It resulted in the implementation of rehabilitation measures for the affected
communities, including medical assistance, compensation, and efforts to restore
the harmed ecosystems. The intervention of the judiciary was crucial in recognizing
the afflicted communities' rights and holding pesticide manufacturers
accountable.
In Vanashakti
Vanashakti And Ors. v. UoI And Ors.[12]
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India, requesting that the
Central Government investigate and restrict the use of 85 pesticides that pose
serious health and environmental risks. According to the application, the
committee, tasked with reviewing the use of 66 pesticides banned in other
countries, has not even looked at the harmful pesticides in issue. The
application also requests that all pesticides be examined and that the review
committee consist of independent health specialists concerned with pesticide
health effects, state government representatives, and ecological agriculture
experts.
The
petition submitted seeks to enforce the right to health of farmers, farm
workers, and consumers by asking for the prohibition and restriction of harmful
pesticides that are used in India but have been banned/restricted by other
countries. The use of these harmful pesticides has caused serious environmental
and health problems in Punjab, Kerala, and Maharashtra, in particular. Cancer,
DNA damage, brain and nervous system damage, Parkinson's disease, birth
defects, immunological abnormalities, and negative effects on the physical and
mental development of children in farmers, agricultural workers, and their families
are among the health risks associated with these pesticides. Following the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various expert committees have been
appointed by the central government. Supreme Court has even questioned the
appointment of different subsequent committees when one committee has already recommended
the ban of the pesticides in question. The final judgement of the Supreme Court
is yet to come since the matter is pending the government's response.
These
case studies from India illustrate the environmental impact of pesticide
exposure and the role of judicial interventions in addressing these issues,
promoting environmental justice, and protecting the environment and public
health. They highlight the importance of scientific evidence, public awareness,
and legal frameworks for influencing policy changes and ensuring accountability
in pesticide regulation.
Key Principles
That Evolved from Judicial Precedents in Environmental Cases
1. The precautionary
principle:
The precautionary
principle states that in the face of scientific uncertainty, precautions must
be taken to protect the environment and human health. When the potential
hazards of pesticide exposure are suspected but not yet fully understood,
courts frequently rely on this principle. It emphasizes the necessity of erring
on the side of caution and taking preventative measures[13].
2. The Sustainable
development principle:
The courts recognize the
sustainable development principle[14],
which emphasizes the integration of environmental protection, social welfare,
and economic development. In cases involving pesticides, courts frequently
attempt to strike a balance between the need for agricultural productivity and
the preservation of ecosystems and human health. They take into account the
long-term effects of pesticide use and seek to promote sustainable practices
that minimize environmental damage.
3. The public trust doctrine:
The public trust doctrine
holds that the government holds certain natural resources, including air,
water, and forests, in trust for the public's benefit. The courts rely on this
principle to defend the environment from pesticide exposure-related damage.
They acknowledge the public's right to a pure and healthy environment and endeavour
to preserve these resources for future generations[15].
4. The polluter pays
principle:
The polluter pays
principle states that those who create environmental damage should endure the
costs of mitigating and correcting that damage. Courts frequently apply this
principle to cases involving pesticide exposure, holding responsible parties
accountable for their actions' environmental and health consequences. They may
order compensation payments or the implementation of measures to restore or
rehabilitate affected ecosystems[16].
5. Scientific Evidence and
Expert Testimony:
Courts rely heavily on
scientific evidence and expert testimony when determining the environmental
impact of pesticide exposure. Evaluation of the potential risks and hazards
associated with pesticide use is based on studies, research findings, and
expert opinion. The importance of scientific evidence in establishing
causation, demonstrating the need for regulatory action, and guiding judicial
decisions cannot be overstated.
6. Procedural fairness and public
participation:
In pesticide-related
cases, courts frequently emphasize the significance of procedural fairness and
public participation. They may necessitate that government agencies conduct
public consultations, seek expert opinions, and include stakeholders in
decision-making processes. This ensures that diverse viewpoints are considered
and that affected communities can express their concerns.
7. Fundamental right to a
pure and healthy environment:
Along with the
above-mentioned principles, the Courts also recognize the fundamental right to
a pure and healthy environment through explicit constitutional provisions or
interpretations of existing laws. Judiciary employs this principle to defend
individuals and communities from pesticide's harmful effects. The right to a
pure environment encompasses freedom from pollution, toxic substances, and
environmental degradation.
By applying these principles, the
courts seek to achieve a balance between agricultural requirements,
environmental protection, and public health[17].
They evaluate the interests of various stakeholders, the weight of scientific
evidence, and legal frameworks to render decisions that uphold the principles
of sustainability, environmental justice, and the preservation of ecosystems
and human welfare.
Conclusion:
Despite
its limited jurisdiction, the Courts have played an important role in these
cases. More importantly, from an environmental standpoint, a vision for the
future is required. There are many incidents where the lacunae in the
legislation have been highlighted by the Supreme Court. The precautionary principle
states that in the face of scientific uncertainty, precautions must be taken to
protect the environment and human health. When the potential hazards of
pesticide exposure are suspected but not yet fully understood because of a lack
of scientific evidence, courts frequently rely on this principle. Also, the
principles of absolutes liability, strict liability, and polluter pays
principle have been seen in cases such as endosulfan. In a nation like India,
where the principle of separation of powers is being followed and the authority
of courts is restricted, it is remarkable how hard the Indian judiciary has
worked on environmental cases involving pesticides. Overall, the Indian
judiciary has made a tremendous contribution to protecting the environment,
ecology, forests, wildlife, and human life from the dangers of pesticides.
[1] Research Scholar, School of Law,
RUAS, Bangalore and Asst. Professor, School of Law, DSU, Bangalore.
[2] Dean and Professor of Law, School
of Law, DSU, Bangalore.
[3] Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.,
(1996) 2 SCC 549
[4] García, A. M. (2003, November 14).
Pesticide exposure and women’s health. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44(6),
584–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10256
[5] Shaikh, D. A. (2019). The Indian
Constitution and the Role of Indian Judiciary System in Protection of
Environment in India. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3375640
[6] Tang FHM and others, “Risk of
Pesticide Pollution at the Global Scale” (2021) 14 Nature Geoscience 206
[7] Ibid
[8] 1989 SCC (2) 540
[9] (1991) 4 SCC 584
[11] Writ Petition (C) No. 213 of 2011
decided on May 11, 2013
[12] Vanashakti Vanashakti And Ors. v.
UoI And Ors , WP(C) No. 237/2017,
Supreme Court of India
[13] Dwivedi, Suneet Kumar and Kashyap, Pradip, Environmental Protection Law
and Policy in India (May 16, 2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2266021 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2266021
[14] Indian council for enviro-legal actions v. union of india, (1996) 3 SCC
212.
[15] Pal, A. (2018). The Evolution of India’s
Environmental Jurisprudence and the Role of the Judiciary. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3492633
[16] Turaga, Rama Mohana & Sugathan,
Anish. (2020). Environmental Regulations in India.
10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.417.
[17] Chavan, Nishant. (2021). Environmental
Protection Acts in India. International Journal of Scientific Research in
Science and Technology. 480-483. 10.32628/IJSRST218560.
Article Information
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS OF HARMFUL PESTICIDES AND THE ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT: AN OVERVIEW
Authors: MR. SANJAY H. UTAGI, PROF. (DR.) PRASHANT S. DESAI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/12/30
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.