Order to be effective till ICMR submits report
The Supreme Court on Wednesday banned the manufacture, sale, use and export of endosulfan throughout the country, citing its harmful health effects.
Read also: Supreme Court order
The ban would remain effective till the time the joint committee formed under the aegis of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the agriculture commissioner, submits its report to the court about the harmful effect of the widely used pesticide. The report is expected to be filed within eight weeks.
Apart from conducting a pan-India study of the health impacts of endosulfan, the court has also ordered the government to come up with safer and cheaper alternatives of the pesticide and decide on how existing stocks have to be destroyed. A decision to lift the ban would be taken if endosulfan comes clean in the ICMR study.
The three judge bench, comprising chief justice S H Kapadia, justice Swatantar Kumar and justice K S P Radhakrishnan was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI- Kerala wing) seeking a ban on the toxic pesticide.
The Union government agreed with the need of a blanket ban but suggested waiting till the ICMR report comes. To this, chief justice Kapadia said, "I cannot allow the use of endosulfan for even seven weeks. Effect on one child's health is also crucial and I can't have that on my head." The DYFI had supported their petition with three reports indicting endosulfan: the 2002 report on the health impact of endosulfan on Padre village prepared by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), the 2003 Kerala government report on the health hazards of aerial spraying of endosulfan, and the latest report prepared by the Government Medical College in Calicut.
Gopal Subramaniam, the Solicitor General representing the Union government, expressed concern on the impact an immediate ban would have on the production of kharif crops, especially paddy and cotton. In response the bench wanted to know about the alternatives of endosulfan. The government ceded it does not have adequate information on the alternatives but knows that endosulfan is cost effective. The bench countered saying, money can't be the only yardstick to decide this matter and if Kerala's kharif crops could do without endosulfan so can the rest of the country's.
The counsel for the endosulfan manufacturers present in the courtroom cited examples of endosulfan being sprayed across the world. Justice Swatantar Kumar brushed aside the statement and said it did not matter what was being done across the world. The endosulfan manufacturers persuaded further that endosulfan is a registered pesticide, they have a license to sell it and it is being used for the last 40 years. The endosulfan manufacturers added that none of the farmers had ever complained, to which the chief justice assured that farmers never complain and it the right of the Supreme Court to take this up under the precautionary principle. He added that just because a blind eye was turned towards the impact of endosulfan for the last 40 years does not mean that the trend has to continue. The chief justice also chided the endosulfan manufacturers for lacking corporate social responsibility and ignoring the impact on human health.
The pesticide manufacturers and the Union government took refuge in a 2003 report by the O P Dubey committee that was mandated to look into Kerala's endosulfan tragedy and the findings of the NIOH report. In an expose by Down To Earth, the O P Dubey committee report incidentally was found to be manipulated, facts distorted and dissent voices suppressed (see ‘What Dubey did’, Down To Earth, August 16-31, 2005). Nevertheless, the pesticide manufacturers cited from the Dubey committee report that had taken data from different state agricultural universities and concluded that there were no health impacts of endosulfan except in Kasaragod where the pesticide was aerially sprayed. They added that one NIOH study could not be the basis for a countrywide ban.
The bench overruled, stating that just as the NIOH study cannot be a basis for a country wide ban, the Dubey committee report could not be the basis for allowing endosulfan throughout the country. They further added that an all-India study cannot be based on data from agricultural universities and it had to be a field study.
The pesticide manufacturers did try to sneak out permission for exports but were unable to submit export orders to the bench and so it was ruled that exports too will have to be banned. Deepak Prakash, advocate for the DYFI, said after the victory that it was a smooth sailing for the petitioners as the bench prima facie supported the all India ban.
There is rejoicing in the Kerala camp which had been relentlessly working towards a ban on endosulfan and getting justice for the victims in the state. “This judgement restores our faith in the judiciary. It was quite endearing to learn that the bench announced that it did not depend on how toxic a pesticide was, but the fact that if it affected even one person appropriate action should be taken. This was a people's issue which was for long ignored by agricultural scientists who were completely sold out to corporate interests,” said C Jayakumar of Thanal, a non-profit working with the endosulfan victims.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.