The National Green Tribunal has issued a comprehensive order directing the immediate substitution of non-degradable multi-layered plastic (MLP) with biodegradable alternatives, citing severe environmental and public health risks. The Tribunal emphasized that the failure of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 has enabled unchecked proliferation of non-recyclable, non-energy recoverable packaging waste, endangering over 200,000 residents in Bhopal and beyond. The order mandates concrete actions from state agencies, pollution boards, and producers to enforce compliance and eliminate systemic loopholes.
The Verdict
The National Green Tribunal ruled in favor of environmental protection and public health, holding that non-degradable multi-layered plastic (MLP) must be immediately substituted with biodegradable alternatives. The Tribunal directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and State Governments to enforce Extended Producer Responsibility rigidly, phase out non-recyclable MLP, and establish monitoring systems for microplastics in drinking water. Key directions include mandatory replacement of MLP packaging, relocation of illegal plastic units away from residential areas, and formation of expert committees to develop standardized testing protocols for microplastics.
Background & Facts
The National Green Tribunal initiated this suo moto proceeding based on a December 14, 2025, report in Dainik Bhaskar highlighting the proliferation of illegal plastic recycling units in and around Bhopal. These units, concentrated in the Adampur Cantonment and "New Categorized Garage" area, process an estimated 10 to 12 tonnes of plastic waste daily, including multi-layered packaging (MLP) from fast-moving consumer goods. The waste is illegally recycled into granules, often burned in open dumps, releasing toxic dioxins and furans. Over 50 unregulated plastic recycling factories operate without pollution clearances, despite a 2022 ban on single-use plastics in Bhopal.
The Municipal Corporation lacks accurate records of businesses operating on 800 allotted plots, and nearly 70 plots are under lease cancellation proceedings for non-payment of rent. E-waste from discarded electronics is mixed with plastic waste, exacerbating pollution. A study by the Automotive Research Association of India recorded PM10 levels at 225 µg/m³ near the scrapyard - far exceeding safe limits. The Tribunal noted that while the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 mandated the phase-out of non-recyclable MLP within two years, this provision has been rendered ineffective by subsequent amendments that introduced vague exceptions.
The Central Pollution Control Board and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change submitted reports acknowledging the absence of commercially viable recycling technologies for MLP and the lack of enforceable recovery targets under EPR. The Tribunal also referenced findings from the World Health Organization and multiple Indian institutions confirming the presence of microplastics in drinking water, air, soil, and human tissues, though causal health impacts remain unproven.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the obligation under Rule 9(3) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 to phase out multi-layered plastic that is non-recyclable, non-energy recoverable, or without alternate use remains enforceable despite the 2018 amendment that broadened the exemption criteria. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether the failure of Extended Producer Responsibility mechanisms constitutes a violation of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, acting through the Tribunal’s suo moto jurisdiction, argued that the 2018 amendment to Rule 9(3) - which replaced "non-recyclable" with "non-recyclable or non-energy recoverable or with no alternate use" - has been exploited by producers to continue manufacturing MLP under the pretext of potential energy recovery or alternative uses. The petitioner cited the absence of any commercial technology in India capable of separating MLP layers, the lack of collection infrastructure, and the fact that ragpickers reject MLP due to its zero monetary value. The petitioner relied on Section 3(e) of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment, and on the precautionary principle recognized in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Central Pollution Control Board, acknowledged the environmental hazards but argued that EPR guidelines under Schedule-II of the 2022 amendment provide a framework for collection and recycling. They contended that MLP could be processed through waste-to-energy methods and that the absence of standardized data on microplastic health impacts precludes immediate regulatory action. The CPCB submitted that no conclusive evidence links microplastics in drinking water to human health risks, citing the WHO’s 2019 report.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ reliance on the 2018 amendment as a loophole. It held that the original intent of Rule 9(3) - to eliminate MLP that cannot be practically managed - was subverted by allowing producers to claim speculative "alternate uses" without any verification mechanism. "The substitution of words does not alter the reality that MLP remains non-recyclable, non-energy recoverable, and without any viable alternate use in India," the Tribunal observed.
"The producers cannot be permitted to continue manufacturing MLP under the guise of EPR compliance when no system exists to collect even a fraction of the waste they introduce into the market."
The Tribunal emphasized that the Extended Producer Responsibility framework under Rule 9 is not a voluntary scheme but a statutory obligation. The absence of minimum recovery targets, public disclosure of collection data, and enforcement mechanisms renders EPR ineffective. The Tribunal distinguished the WHO report, noting that while it does not establish definitive health risks, it explicitly calls for long-term studies and source-directed interventions - both of which the respondents have failed to implement.
The Tribunal further held that the continued operation of plastic recycling units in residential zones violates the precautionary principle and the right to life under Article 21. The presence of microplastics in drinking water, even without proven causation, demands preventive action under the doctrine of sustainable development. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that technological limitations excuse non-compliance, stating that innovation must be incentivized, not used as an excuse for inaction.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent that statutory obligations under environmental rules cannot be circumvented by regulatory ambiguity. Practitioners must now treat MLP as effectively banned unless replaced with certified biodegradable alternatives. Producers and brand owners must revise packaging designs and submit concrete EPR plans with measurable recovery targets to obtain consent under the Environment (Protection) Act. The Tribunal’s directive to form expert committees for microplastic standards will likely lead to future national guidelines, making water quality monitoring for microplastics a compliance requirement for municipal corporations.
The order also signals a shift toward proactive environmental enforcement: courts and tribunals will no longer wait for conclusive scientific proof of harm before acting where systemic failures endanger public health. Future litigation against non-compliant producers under Section 15 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, may now cite this order as evidence of established regulatory intent. Municipalities must also reassess zoning policies to prevent industrial waste units from operating near residential areas.
The judgment does not apply to all plastic waste but is narrowly focused on MLP with layered structures containing plastic, aluminum, and paper - common in snack and beverage packaging. Single-layered plastics and recyclable packaging are unaffected, provided EPR obligations are met.
