Ban on Plastic Petition

8/10/2019 Ban on Plastic Petition

1/46

07.02.2012/S.D.Draft

DRAFT DATED 07.02.2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 2012(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

BETWEEN

1 Karuna Society for Animals and Nature, a society

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 andhaving its address at 2/138C, Behind S. C. Quarters,

Enumulapalli, Puttaparthi 515 134, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Visakha Society for Protection and Care of Animals, a

society registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860 and having its address at #26-15-200, Main Road,

Visakhapatnam 530 001, Andhra Pradesh

3. Clementien Pauws having her address at 2/138C, Behind

S. C. Quarters, Enumulapalli, Puttaparthi 515 134,

Andhra Pradesh

4. Rukmini Sekhar, New Delhi Indian Inhabitant, having

her address at R-32, South Extension, Part II, New

Delhi 110 049

5. Pradeep Kumar Nath, having his address at #26-15-200,

Main Road, Visakhapatnam 530 001, Andhra Pradesh Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India through the Animal Welfare Division inthe Ministry of Environment and Forests having its

address at Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi

Road, New Delhi 110 003

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh through the Directorate of

Animal Husbandry, Shantinagar, Hyderabad-500 028

3. The State of Assam through its Animal Husbandry and

Veterinary Department having its address at Chenikuthi,Veterinary complex, M.C.Road, Uzan Bazar, Guwahati-

781 003


2/46

2

4. The State of Bihar through Animals and Fisheries

Resources Department, having its address at Vikas

Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001.

5. The State of Punjab through the Animal Husbandry,Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, having its

address at 17, Bays Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh-160

017

6. The State of Maharashtra through the Environment

Department having its address at Mantralaya, Madame

Cama Road, Mumbai 400 032.

7 The State of Rajasthan through the Department of

Animal Husbandry having its address at Mantralaya

Bhawan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur-302 005.

8 The State of Kerala through the Directorate of Animal

Husbandry, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram-695033.

9 The State of Karnataka through the Animal Husbandry

and Fisheries Department having its address at

Vishweshwariah Mini Tower, 2nd

Floor, Dr.

B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bangalore-500 001.

10 The State of Tamil Nadu through the Animal Husbandry

Dairy and Fisheries Department having its address at

Central Office buildings, Block 11, DHS Complex,

Chennai-600 006.

11 The State of Orissa through the Animal Resources

Development Department having its address at

Directorate of Animal Husbandry and VeterinaryServices, Mangalabag, Cuttack-753 001.

12 The State of Gujarat through the Animal Husbandry

Department having its address at Sachivalaya,

Gandhinagar-382 010.

13 The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Animal

Husbandry Department having its address at Director,

Veterinary Services, Vaishali Nagar, Katra,Bhopal-462 003


3/46

3

14 The State of Uttar Pradesh through the Animal

Husbandry Department having its address at Gokaran

Nath Road, Badshahbagh, Lucknow-226 007.

15 The State of Jharkhand through the Animal Husbandryand Fisheries Department having its address at Shri

Satyanand Jha, Nepal House Dorandai, Ranchi-834 002.

16 The State of Goa through the Animal Husbandry and

Veterinary Services Department having its address at

Parshusamvaidhan Bhavan, Patto, Panaji 403 001.

17 The State of West Bengal through the Animal Resources

Development Department having its address at Writer

buildings, Kolkata 700 001.

18 The State of Haryana through the Animal Husbandry and

Dairy Department having its address at Pashudhan

Bhawan, Bays o.9-12, Panchkula-134 151 (Haryana).

19 The Animal Welfare Board of India having its address at

13/1, 3rd

Sea Ward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmyur,

Chennai 600 041.

20 Anantpur Municipal Corporation, a statutory corporation

through its Commissioner having its address at

Neelkanta Reddy, Commisioner.

21 Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a statutory corporation

constituted under the provisions of the Delhi MunicipalCorporation Act, 1957 having its address at Town Hall,

Chandani Chowk, Delhi -110006.

22 New Delhi Municipal Council, a body corporate

constituted under the provisions of New Delhi Municipal

Council Act, 1994 having its address at Palika Kendra

Building, Opposite Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street,

New Delhi -110001

23 The Central Pollution Control Board, a statutory board

having its address at Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-cum Office

Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110032 Respondents


4/46

4

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

TO

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS OTHER

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HONBLE THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

A.PARTIES

The Petitioners

1(a). The 1st

Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the

Societies Registration Act, 1860. The 1st Petitioner was registered in

September, 2000 and is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India

(Respondent No.19 herein). The 1stPetitioner runs a hospital and shelter

for small animals which have been injured, or ill, or have been

abandoned. The animals rescued and treated at the 1stPetitioners shelter

include, dogs, cats, monkeys and a variety of birds. It also has a hospitalfor large animals such as cattle, buffaloes, donkeys, horses and a camel.

The 1stPetitioner also runs a wild life rescue centre which at present is

home to animals such as sloth bears, black buck, sambar deer and spotted

deer. In the course of its work the 1stPetitioner has received awards and

recognition with regard to its work in the field of animal welfare.

1(b) One of the significant contributing factors to the ill health among many

species, including cows and bulls, is the gastro-intestinal injuries caused


5/46

5

by ingestion of plastic in the form of plastic carrying bags. These bags

which have been used to carry food or food-waste may contain food

remnants and smell like food to animals. Animals cannot necessarily

differentiate between the food and the plastic and so ingest the plastic in

their quest for life-sustaining food. On 10.10.2011, with regard to the

nationwide problem of cruelty and distress to animals caused by the

ingestion of plastic and consequent health impacts on humans, the Board

of the 1stPetitioner has resolved to file the present petition as a public

interest litigation before this Honble Court. A copy of the 1stPetitioners

certificate of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and

the recognition issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India are hereto

annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 & P-1A. A detailed account of the

1stPetitioners activities is set out in Annexure P-2 hereto. A copy of the

resolution passed by the Board of the 1stPetitioner dated 10.10.2011 is

hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-3.

1(c). The 2nd

Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the

Societies Registration Act, 1860. It works to stop the illegal trade in

internationally protected sea turtles; rescues cows and buffaloes that have

been neglected by their owners; provides a sanctuary to dogs, cats, birds,

monkeys, horses, rabbits and several other rescued animals. The activities

of the 2nd

Petitioner extend beyond sea turtle protection to the protection

of migratory birds and protection of wild life generally. In the course of

its activities, the 2nd

Petitioner has received international recognition and

has won awards. A copy of the 2nd

Petitioners certificate of registration

is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-4. A summary of the 2nd

Petitioners activities and awards are set out at Annexure P-5 hereto.

Having regard to the distress caused to animals (domestic and wild) by

the ingestion of plastic bags and the consequent impact on human health,

the 2nd

Petitioner has resolved to approach this Honble Court by way of


6/46

6

this public interest litigation. A copy of the resolution passed by the

Board of the 2nd

Petitioner dated _____ is hereto annexed and marked as

Annexure P-6.

1(d). The 3rd

Petitioner is the President of the 1st Petitioner and has been

personally involved in animal welfare issues for more than 15 years. She

resides at Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh since 1995.

1(e) The 4th Petitioner is a citizen of India and is writer and animal rights

activist. A resum of her activities and background is summarized in astatement appended as Annexure P-7.

1(f) The 5th Petitioner is a citizen of India and is the President of the 2

nd

Petitioner society. He has been engaged in animal welfare activity for

more than 16 years.

The Respondents /

2(a). The 1stRespondent is the Union of India through the Union Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Animal Welfare Division. The 1stRespondent

is responsible for framing and enforcing suitable regulations to prevent

cruelty to animals and to ensure that human health is not compromised by

the indiscriminate ingestion of plastic by cows and other animals.

2(b). The 2nd

Respondent 18th

Respondent are State governments through

their respective Animal Husbandry Departments which are responsible

for protecting and advancing animal welfare. All the States of the Union

have not been joined as party Respondents at this stage and the

Petitioners reserve their right to implead other States and Union

Territories, when considered necessary.


7/46

7

2(c). The 19th

Respondent is the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory

board established under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act, 1960. The functions of the Board include impartingeducation in relation to humane treatment of animals, encouraging the

formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary pain or

suffering on animals and promoting animal welfare. The Boards

functions also extend to advising the government in matters connected

with animal welfare and the prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain

or suffering on animals. The Board is empowered to make regulations,inter alia, for carrying out its functions.

2(d). Respondent No. 20 is the Anantpur Municipal Corporation, a statutory

corporation discharging municipal functions in respect of the city of

Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh. The Anantpur Municipal Corporation has

adopted numerous steps to prevent the inter face between animals

(particularly cows) and plastic waste (particularly plastic bags). These

measures deserve to be replicated across India to prevent cruelty to

animals and the consequential harm to humans. The 21st and 22

nd

Respondents are statutory corporations discharging municipal functions

in New Delhi. There two Respondents are also guilty of having failed and

neglected to discharge their statutory obligations regarding the propercollection and disposal of plastic waste which has resulted in animals

ingesting plastic.

2(e) The 23rd

Respondent (CPCB) is a statutory board exercising jurisdiction,

inter alia, under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The CPCB discharges

responsibilities under the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and


8/46

8

handling) Rules, 2000 and is responsible for coordinating the

implementation of these rules.

3. The Respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Honble

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. All the Respondents

are the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of

India.

B. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

Fundamental Rights Violated

4(a). The grievance of the Petitioners is that governmental inaction and neglect

are causing a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India. The right to life includes a right to healthful

living. Having regard to Indias cultural traditions and values, particularly

the Constitutional values contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India

containing the Directive Principles of State Policy; the State is under an

obligation to prevent extreme cruelty and pain caused to animals by

governmental inaction. Due to government neglect across the country

and her maritime boundaries or coastline, animals particularly cows and

bulls, are ingesting plastic from garbage dumps and plastic bags littered

across the landscape and oceans. The ingestion of plastic from plastic

bags chokes the stomach of cows and as detailed below, in thePetitioners experience, cows are filled with plastic waste at times over 50

kilos in weight. What appears to be a healthy cow, is in fact a plastic-

choked cow or a cow full of plastic. Apart from the plastic completely

choking the digestive system of the cow and causing excruciating pain to

the animal, the plastic residues enter the human food chain through dairy

and animal products. Since the health of human beings is directly

impacted by animal products such as milk and meat which are

contaminated by plastic residue, the issues raised in this petition directly


9/46

9

impact the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

4(b). Despite the enactment of rules for the disposal of municipal solid wastesand the management and handling of plastic waste, the Respondent States

have failed and neglected to implement these rules. The rules require that

stray animals shall not be allowed to move around near waste storage

facilities. The rules also require that the Respondents and municipal

authorities within the territories of the Respondent States must ensure the

safe collection, storage and disposal of plastic waste. The inaction, failureand neglect of the Respondents in implementing these rules is arbitrary

and amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Public Interest Litigation

5. This petition is a public interest litigation. The Petitioners have

approached this Honble Court bona fide to espouse a public cause.

Petitioners seek to discharge fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of

the Constitution of India which requires every citizen of India to have

compassion for living creatures. The Petitioners seek to draw the

attention of this Honble Court to an extremely unfortunate and painful

state of affairs which is resulting in extreme cruelty and pain to animals.

The consequence of the neglect on the part of the Respondents is that

there is no proper segregation of plastic waste resulting in a continuous

interface between animals and plastic bags that have been discarded. It is

respectfully submitted that the regulatory regime is inadequate and where

statutory provisions exist, the Respondent authorities are not enforcing

the rules. The Petitioners do not stand to gain personally from the relief

sought in this case and are approaching this Honble Court in the larger

interest of society.


10/46

10

Core Issue

6. Across India there has been a tremendous increase in the use of plastics

generally, particularly plastic bags. Plastic bags are being swallowed /

ingested by animals both domestic and wild. By and large, across thecountry in villages, towns, cities and in the metros, garbage is disposed in

open dumps. Municipalities across the country do not effectively enforce

municipal solid waste disposal laws. Citizens leave their kitchen waste

including edible items in plastic bags which are left outside their homes

for collection and/or carried to an open garbage bin and left at the

garbage receptacle. Animals live in close communion with people in ruralareas as well as in towns and cities in India. Domestic animals generally,

and cows and bulls in particular, roam the streets looking for food and

these animals know that edible waste is discarded in plastic bags. As a

consequence, in order to reach what is in the bags, cows and bulls chew

and swallow the plastic bags.

7. The cow and bull have a complex digestive system. After chewing the

food, the food collects in the first of the cows stomachs known as the

rumen. Here, the swallowed food is separated into solids and liquid parts

and the fermentation of cellulose fibres takes place. The second stomach

is the reticulum where further fermentation of cellulose fibres occurs. The

third stomach is the omasumwhich absorbs fluids. The forth stomach isknown as the abomasums where proteins are digested before the food

passes into the intestine for absorption of nutrients. A diagrammatic

representation of the digestive system of a cow is marked as Annexure P-

8 hereto.

8 (a) The cows digestive systems is such that plastic bags do not pass through

the rumen into the reticulum and the plastic remains trapped in the cows

first stomach. The 1st Petitioner society has conducted a total of 53


11/46

11

rumenotomies. A rumenotomy is a surgical operation conducted by a

veterinary surgeon which involves the cutting open of the rumen. The

discovery made during the rumenotomies is startling. The Petitioners

have found that tens of kilos of plastic waste clog the rumen of living

cows, completely destroying the digestive system and preventing food

from passing through the digestive track. What to an untrained eye

appears to be a normal cow roaming the streets is actually a plastic-

choked cow or a cow full of plastic. This choking of the digestive

system causes extreme agony to the cow and eventually leads to a slow

and painful death. The plastic-filled cow, unable to eat any more, slowly

begins to starve and grinds and gnashes its teeth in utter pain. If the

problem is detected in time and rumenotomies are conducted, the cow

may survive, or else it dies a painful death.

8(b) The problem of plastic ingested by cows and bulls is the subject of

scientific research in India as well as overseas. Plastic bags threaten cattle

health, as brought out in a study entitled Plastic bags -- Threat to

Environment and Cattle Health: A Retrospective Study from Gondar City

of Ethiopiaby V. Ramaswamy and H.R. Sharma; The IIOAB Journal,

Vol.2(1) Page 7-12 (2011). The authors of this study found that polythene

bags were causing various pathological conditions such as indigestion,

impaction, tympany, polybezoars, and immunosuppression. The animals

had bloated stomachs and suffered loss of weight, ruminial impaction and

reduction of milk yield. The acute bloat causes pressure over the

diaphragms and ribs, limiting respiratory movements, leading to

hypoventilation and decreased veinous return to the heart. The acute bloat

was recognized as a factor that could lead to cattle mortality. The

research paper was based on 711 rumenotomies during the period 2004-

2010. A copy of the research paper is marked as Annexure P- 9 hereto.


12/46

12

9. A summary of what was found during the rumenotomies conducted by

the 1stPetitioner in its animal hospital is below:

SN Date Quantum of plastic

waste removed fromthe rumen

Remarks

1 20.11.2010 48 kg Recovered

2 20.11.2010 48 kg Died on 1112.2010

3 27.11.2010 42 kg Died on 11.12.2010

4 04.12.2010 56 kg Died on 06.12.2010

5 04.12.2010 52 kg Died on 18.12.2010

6 11.12.2010 63 kg Recovered

7 18.12.2010 47 kg Recovered

8 25.12.2010 46 kg Recovered9 08.01.2011 44 kg Recovered

10 08.01.2011 52 kg Recovered

11 12.01.2011 53 kg Recovered

12 16.01.2011 42 kg Recovered

13 23.01.2011 37 kg Recovered

14 27.01.2011 42 kg Recovered

15 27.01.2011 18 kg Recovered

16 29.01.2011 42 kg Recovered

17 01.02.2011 34 kg Recovered18 05.02.2011 62 kg Euthanized on

12.02.2011

19 12.02.2011 56 kg Recovered

20 17.02.2011 44 kg Recovered

21 19.02.2011 52 kg Recovered

22 21.02.2011 51 kg Recovered

23 26.02.2011 62 kg Recovered

24 26.02.2011 56 kg Recovered

25 05.03.2011 59 kg Recovered calf 8months

26 05.03.2011 58 kg Recovered

27 05.03.2011 47 kg Recovered

28 12.03.2011 37 kg Recovered

29 12.03.2011 36 kg Recovered

30 12.03.2011 49 kg Recovered

31 15.03.2011 44 kg Recovered

32 17.03.2011 39 kg Recovered


35 28.03.2011 38 kg Recovered


13/46

13

36 09.04.2011 32 kg Recovered

37 09.04.2011 57 kg Recovered

38 09.04.2011 41 kg Recovered

39 16.04.2011 61 kg Recovered

40 16.04.2011 59 kg Recovered


43 30.04.2011 41 kg Recovered

44 30.04.2011 49 kg Recovered

45 14.05.2011 59 kg Recovered

46 14.05.2011 51 kg Recovered

47 24.09.2011 61 kg Recovered

48 08.10.2011 63 kg Recovered

49 15.10.2011 51 kg Recovered


52 17.10.2011 02 kg Recovered

53 17.10.2011 03 kg Recovered

Note: Three cows delivered healthy calves after surgery and four are

pregnant.

10. The Petitioners research and inquiries have revealed that while the

problem of plastic collecting in the rumen of a cow is particularly acute in

the case of cows because of their particular digestive system, other

animals as well, including wild animals are ingesting plastic bags.

11. PCB is an abbreviation for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. PCBs are harmful

to human health and studies show that the accumulation of PCBs in the

human body may lead to harmful effects like reduced growth, alteration

in hormone receptor binding and alternation in steroid hormone balance

of the population. PCBs are probable human carcinogens. They have been

shown to cause cancer in animals. Scientific studies of stray cattle in the

Chennai region show that the milk collected from stray cattle which

scavenged for food in urban streets and refuse dumps contained high

levels of PCBs. (Polychlorinated Biphenyles in Milk and Rumen Liquor


14/46

14

of Stray Cattle in Chennai by V. Vanitha, G. Sarath and A.P. Nambi;

Tamil Nadu J. Veterinary & Animal Sciences 6 (2) 71-74, March April,

2010). The ingestion of plastic by cows unless appropriately dealt with

is likely to have a serious and persistent deleterious impact on human

health. A copy of the aforesaid article on PCBs in the milk and rumen

liquor of stray cattle in Chennai is marked as Annexure P-10 hereto.

12. It is submitted that it is essential that this Hon'ble Court examine the

issues raised in this case and pass appropriate orders that will eliminate

the interface between plastic bags/plastic waste and animals/cows andbulls. The directions sought from this Hon'ble Court in the first instance

pertain to the prohibition of certain types of plastic bags; the segregation

of plastic waste; and the prevention of waste disposal through plastic

bags.

C. FACTS RELATING TO INGESTION OF PLASTIC BY ANIMALS

Cows and bulls

13. Cows and bulls feeding on garbage dumps is a common sight. Garbage

dumps contain a huge amount of plastic including plastic bags.

Photographs of cows and bulls feeding scavenging at garbage dumps are

annexed and marked as Annexure P-11.

14. Despite rules framed for municipal solid waste disposal, in practice India

still has an open garbage system with open bins in virtually all human

settlements from villages to the metros. Typically, the garbage bins are on

roads and overflow with waste. Cows, dogs, pigs and other animals such

as monkeys, rats, etc. visit these dumps in search of food. A large number


15/46

15

of cows that stray on the roads eat from garbage bins, foraging for left

over vegetables, fruit and anything edible that smells like food. For

example, in Udaipur city, cows and bulls are seen on the streets everyday

feeding from blue plastic bins.

15. Plastic bags are available everywhere, and food waste is disposed of in

these bags. Plastic bags are discarded on the road or at municipal waste

bins. Plastic bags are often knotted at the mouth, and cows and bulls are

not able to undo the knot. Cows and bulls eat this food left over and

ingest the plastic. Slowly, over time, cows build up a huge amount of

plastic inside their stomachs. Due to churning and contraction of the

ruemen and reticulum, and the micro flora population therein, the plastic

becomes like a hard rock inside the rumen (the first stomach) in the belly

of the cow.

16. The cattle on the street may be stray or owned by small dairies and

individuals. The animals are left to roam the streets and the areas at the

periphery of cities or towns where garbage is dumped. Dairy owners and

individuals often send their animals out on the road to forage for food in

order to save money. The owners nevertheless extract milk from these

cows which derive sustenance from waste discarded in garbage bins,

garbage landfills, around vegetable markets, etc.

17. The 1stPetitioner is based at Puttaparthi, around 70 kilometers away from

the city of Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh. In December, 2010 the 1st

Petitioners animal shelter received permanent custody of 36 stray cattle

that were delivered to it by the Anantpur municipal administration. Soon

after arrival, one of cows died. A postmortem of this cow conducted by a

veterinary surgeon revealed that animals rumen was full of plastic. The

plastic removed from this dead cow weighed around 40 kgs. After


16/46

16

examining the remaining cows, the surgeon advised conducting surgeries

to remove the plastic from these cows to save their lives.

18. The digestive system of a cow has been explained above. The 1st

Petitioners staff as well as the veterinary surgeon noticed that many of

the cows which appeared normal to an untrained eye were experiencing

extreme discomfort and pain. These animals were unable to eat grass

since their digestive system was completely blocked by the hardened

plastic waste that had formed a solid block in the rumen. In cases where

the digestive system was almost completely compromised, the animalswere grinding their teeth in pain. When a cow or bull experiences

extreme pain, the pain manifests itself through the cow or bull

continuously grinding its teeth. The plastic also causes the belly of the

cow to bloat. Calves born from affected cows are small in size due to lack

of food and space in the womb caused by a rumen packed with plastic.

19. The 1stPetitioner has maintained a record of the rumenotomies conducted

by it. The maximum plastic removed from cows stomach has been 63

kgs. The third petitioner, as President of the 1st Petitioner society, has

affirmed an affidavit setting out the experience of this society. This

affidavit dated _____ is annexed and marked as Annexure P 12. A

statement summarizing the particulars of the above mentioned operations,

each of which was conducted by a veterinary surgeon, are set out in

Annexure P-13. Photographs taken during the rumenotomies and showing

various stages of the surgery and removal of the plastic are set out in

Annexure P-14.

20. In order to sensitize cattle owners as to how much their cattle suffer when

they are allowed to roam the streets, some of the surgeries were

performed in the presence of cattle owners. The members of the Gram


17/46

17

Panchayat, Municipal Officers from Anantpur and other areas have also

attended the surgeries. On the basis of awareness spread by the activities

of the 1st Petitioner, Anantpur has banned plastic bags. The

Commissioner of Anantpur after seeing the video of the surgery and the

suffering of the cows ordered the removal of all open garbage bins and

has now implemented collection of municipal garbage from door to door.

The Municipal Council has engaged a door to door campaign to educate

members of the public not to discard their waste and plastic because of

the harm caused to animals.

21(a). Apart from the 1stPetitioner, post mortems conducted by emptying the

rumens of cows and bulls, have also been carried out at Udaipur by

another non-governmental organization, Animal Aid Charitable Trust.

Animal Aid runs a hospital facility for rescued animals at Badi, Udaipur

and is assisted by a team of 2 veterinary doctors and 35 staff including 5

veterinary nurses. Animal Aid has also found that bull and stray cows

wandering the streets of Udaipur ingest huge amounts of plastic. Dr.

James Myers and Erika Abrams-Myers, who founded Animal Aid

Charitable Trust, and who perform honorary work at Animal Aid in the

capacity of Joint Directors have affirmed an affidavit setting out the

experience of this organization which works in the Udaipur region. The

affidavit of Dr. James Myers and Erika Abrams-Myers dated

_________is here annexed and marked as Annexure P-15.

21(b). Mr. Lakshman Singh Rathod is a Manager at Animal Aid. He has

affirmed an affidavit setting out the reasons why cows are forced to


18/46

18

scavenge, as well as his experience with regard to post-mortems

conducted by Animal Aid. The affidavit of Mr. Lakshman Singh Rathore

dated _______ is here annexed and marked as Annexure P- 16

22. The India Project for Animals and Nature (IPAN) has also carried out

rumenotomies at Masinagudi, in Tamil Nadu where they run an animal

refuge for abandoned and injured animals. The IPAN has a veterinary

team comprising of three veterinarians and this team has observed the

presence of large quantities of plastic lodged in the stomachs stray cows

and bulls. Dr. Ilona Otter, a veterinary surgeon working with IPAN has

affirmed an affidavit setting out her experience with the IPAN in the

Masinagudi region. The affidavit of Dr. Ilona Otter dated ______ is here

annexed and marked as Annexure P 17.

23. Dr. Suresh Kumar is a practicing veterinary surgeon in Vishakapatnam.

He has also conducted rumenotomies on stray cattle since 2010. He too

has found large quantities of plastic in the stomachs of cows and

buffaloes in the course of these rumenotomies. He has affirmed an

affidavit stating why harm is caused to cows by the ingestion of plastic,

how these affected animals suffer and the large amounts of plastic

consumed by cows in his experience. The affidavit of Dr. Suresh Kumar

dated _________ is here annexed and marked as Annexure P - 18. Three

other veterinary surgeons, Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh of Rewa, Madhya


19/46

19

Pradesh; Dr. M. Jencilin Jeevaranthinam, Thanjavore, Tamil Nadu and

Dr. Viju Vijayan Pillai, Kerala have also set out on affidavit their

observations with regard to rumenotomies conducted by them. The

affidavits of Dr. Anuj Pratap Singh, Dr. M. Jencilin Jeevaranthinam, and

Dr. Viju Vijayan Pillai are hereto annexed and marked as Annexures P19

21.

Other Domestic Animals24. Apart from cows and bulls, other domestic animals forage in garbage

dumps around cities such as donkeys, buffalos, goats, sheep, pigs and

dogs. Inevitably, these animals too ingest plastic. Media reports about

animals feeding on plastic are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P

- 22.

Wild Animals

25. Along Indias rivers and coast, plastic waste and garbage is dumped from

thousands of villages and towns into the water along with untreated

sewage. This garbage including plastic waste is found by wild animals

and is ingested by these animals. Turtles are highly susceptible to

swallowing plastic bags as they strongly resemble their target prey -jellyfish and squid. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nath, the 5

th Petitioner, in the

course of his sea turtle protection work has found that postmortems

conducted on dead turtles show plastic waste in the dead animal. The

affidavit of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nath dated _______ are hereto annexed

and marked as Annexure P-23 hereto.


20/46

20

26. A survey by the United Nations found that plastic in the worlds oceans is

killing more than a million seabirds and a hundred thousand marine

mammals and sea turtles each year. Ingestion of plastic debris may cause

blockage of the digestive tract, perforation of the gut, and result in a loss

of nutrition (due to displacement of food) or cause a false feeling of being

full. An extract of the UNEP report of April 2005 on the Regional Seas

Programme is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-24.

27. Despite the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which contains provisions to

prevent littering (including plastic) in sanctuaries, there have been several

reports of the adverse effects of plastic waste on wildlife in Indias

national parks and zoos. The Bannerghatta National Park, in Karnataka,

lost 18 sambars and deer due to blockage of their rumenoratiular passage

by thin plastics. Clogged plastic balls were found in the stomachs of the

dead animals. Dumping of garbage in the Suswa, an important tributary

of the Ganga, pollutes the Rajaji National Park to such an extent that

elephants at the Park end up eating the plastic waste which has been

found in their dung and is also suspected of causing intestinal problems in

these animals. The Bhimashankar wildlife sanctuary is littered with

garbage and the river basin near the temple is clogged with polythene

bags. Copies of media reports in respect of Indian wildlife affected by

plastic waste are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-25 to P 29.

D. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Constitutional Provisions

28. The principal provisions in the Constitution of India are Articles 14, 21,

47, 48, 48A and 51A (g). These provisions are reproduced below:

14 Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person

equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within

the territory of India.


21/46

21

21 Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

procedure established by law.

47Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standardof living and to improve public health The State shall regard the

raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its

people and the improvement of public health as among its primary

duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring aboutprohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of

intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health

48 Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.TheState shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry

on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for

preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughterof cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

48A Protection and improvement of environment and

safeguarding of forests and wild life.The State shall endeavour

to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the

forests and wild life of the country.

51A Fundamental Duties It shall be the duty of every citizen ofIndia

(g) To protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion

for living creatures;

29. The Petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 are directly

impacted as explained in the grounds in this petition. Briefly, the right to

life of persons is affected because of the potential adverse health impact

arising from PCBs entering into humans through dairy and animal

products. The inaction of the Respondents in failing and neglecting to

adequately implement existing laws for the segregation and disposal of

plastic wastes; the regulatory failure on the part of the Respondents in

failing to prevent the interface between cows and plastic bags resulting in

the ingestion of bags by animals; the failure by the state to recognize and


22/46

22

respond to the potential health threats to its citizens arising from plastic

clogging the stomach of cows, are all arbitrary and unreasonable actions,

transgressing Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

30. Article 47 of the Constitution of India, being part of the Directive

Principles of State Policy, states inter alia that the state has a primary

duty to take steps to better public health. This Court, in the case of

Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC

162 directed an erring Municipality to perform its duty, holding that a

Court may compel a statutory body to carry out its duty to the

community. This Court held:

Where Directive Principles have found statutory expression in

Do's and Dont's the court will not sit idly by and allow municipalgovernment to become a statutory mockery.

The Court went on to hold:

The State will realise that Art. 47 makes it a paramount principle

of governance that steps are taken 'for the improvement of public

health as amongst its primary duties.

It is respectfully submitted that the Respondents have failed to perform

the paramount duty of providing for the betterment of public health. This

inaction has resulted in a substantial threat to public health due to the

improper segregation and disposal of waste, as well as the consumption

of plastic by cows.

31. The Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 48 of the

Constitution of India, inter alia, enjoins the State to prohibit the slaughter of

cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. A Constitution Bench of

seven Learned Judges of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti

Kureshi Kassab Jamat(2005) 8 SCC 534 has held that Article 48 would cover


23/46

23

all cattle even after they had lost their ability to produce milk or to move loads.

This Court expressly held:

A milch cattle goes through a life cycle during which it is

sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This does not

mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce milk, for ashort period as a part of its life cycle, it goes out of purview of

Article 48, and can be slaughtered. A draught cattle may lose its

utility on account of injury or sickness and may be rendered useless

as a draught cattle during that period. This would not mean that if adraught cattle ceases to be of utility for a short period on account of

sickness or injury, it is excluded from the definition of draught

cattle and deprived of the benefit of Article 48.

It is respectfully submitted that the Constitution Bench has consciously

used the expression deprived of the benefitof Article 48 in the context

of cattle, thereby implying that under the Constitution of India

constitutional benefits extend to animals as well.

32. In the context of Article 51 A (g) the Constitution Bench in State of

Gujarat v. Mirzapur Kureshi Kassab Jamatheld:

The State and every citizen must have compassion for livingcreatures . . . The concept of compassion for living creatures

enshrined in Article 51A(g) is based on the background of the rich

cultural heritage of India the land of Mahatama Gandhi, Vinobha,

Mahaveer, Buddha, Nanak and others. No religion or holy book in

any part of the world teaches or encourages cruelty. Indian society

is a pluralistic society. It has unity in diversity. The religions,

cultures and people may be diverse, yet all speak in one voice that

cruelty to any living creature must be curbed and ceased. A cattlewhich has served human beings is entitled to compassionin its old

age when it has ceased to be milch or draught and becomes so-

called useless. It will be an act of reprehensible ingratitude to

condemn a cattle in its old age as useless and send it to a slaughter

house taking away the little time from its natural life that it would

have lived, forgetting its service for the major part of its life, for

which it had remained milch or draught. We have to remember the

weak and meek need more of protection and compassion.

It is respectfully submitted that the Constitution Bench has advisedly used

the expression entitlement to compassion in the context of cattle


24/46

24

because of the constitutional recognition of animal rights. Under the

constitutional scheme, animals have a right to be treated without cruelty

and a right to be free of plastic.

33. From a Constitutional perspective, there is no difference between the

slaughter of cattle by swift mechanical means and cattle dying through an

unusually cruel and slow process of their stomachs being filled with

several kilos of plastic waste. Both these situations are constitutionally

disapproved.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

34. Animals are integral to life in India. Statutes to prevent cruelty to animals

have been in force for more than 130 years and at present the infliction of

unnecessary pain or suffering on animals is proscribed by the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. (PCA, 1960).

35. Section 3 of the PCA, 1960 reads:

3Duties of persons having charge of animals.- It shall be the duty

of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all

reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to

prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or

suffering.

36. Section 4 of the PCA, 1960 requires the Central Government to establishthe Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) (Respondent 19 herein) for

the promotion of animal welfare generally and for the purpose of

protecting animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.

Section 9 of the PCA, 1960 describes the functions of the AWBI. These

functions are described in wide terms and would include taking all

necessary steps to prevent the ingestion of plastic by animals. Section 9

(a), (b), (k) and (l) read:


25/46

25

9. Functions of the Board The functions of the Board shall be

(a) to keep the law in force in India for the prevention of cruelty

to animals under constant study and advise the Government

on the amendments to be undertaken in any such law from

time to time;

(b) to advise the Central Government on the making of rules

under this Act with a view to preventing unnecessary pain or

suffering to animals generally, and more particularly whenthey are being transported from one place to another or when

they are used as performing animals or when they are kept in

captivity or confinement;

* * *(k) to impart education in relation to the humane treatment of

animals and to encourage the formation of public opinion

against the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to

animals and for the promotion of animal welfare by meansof lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions and

the like;

(l) to advise the Government on any matter connected with

animal welfare or the prevention of infliction of unnecessarypain or suffering on animals.

37. Section 11 of the PCA, 1960 penalises the cruel treatment of animals.

Section 11 (1) & (2) in pertinent part read:

11 Treating animals cruelty.-- (1) If any person

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-loads, tortures orotherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to

unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the

owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or

* * *

(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such

animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal incircumstances which render it likely that it will suffer

pain by reason of starvation or thirst;


26/46

26

* * *

he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence,

with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but

which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a

second or subsequent offence committed within threeyears of the previous offence, with fine which shall

not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may

extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to three months, or withboth.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), an owner shall be

deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to

exercise reasonable care and supervision, with a view to theprevention of such offence.

Provided that where an owner is convicted of permittingcruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care

and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment

without the option of a time.

38. In exercise of its power to make rules conferred under Section 38 of the

PCA, 1960 the Central Government has framed several rules including:

(a) The Prevention of Cruelty to Draught and Pack Animals Rules,1965

(b) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Licensing of Farriers)

Rules, 1965

(c) The Performing Animals Rules, 1973

(d) The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001

(e) The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978

(f) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of Fines) Rules,

1978

(g) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Registration of Cattle

Premises) Rules, 1978

(h) The Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of Animals) Rules, 1979


27/46

27

(i) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on

Foot) Rules, 2001

(j) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules,

2001

(k) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and

Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)

Rules, 2001.

(l) The Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules,

1968

(m) The Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and

Supervision) Rules, 1998.

39. It is respectfully submitted that the action of owners to allow cows (and

other animals) to feed on plastic bags and the failure of the authorities to

prevent cows (and other animals) from ingesting plastic bags that are left at

garbage dumps and open garbage bins amounts to inflicting cruelty on

animals. The PCA, 1960 penalises such conduct or inaction and it is

imperative that corrective steps are taken to prevent such wide spread

breach of the law.

Environmental Statutes

40. The principal statute governing environmental protection is the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA). Section 3 of the EPA

empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it deemsnecessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the

quality of the environment. The measures that may be adopted by the

Central Government include the coordination of action by the State

Governments, officers and other authorities with respect to the planning

and execution of nation-wide programmes for the prevention control and

abatement of environmental pollution. Section 5 of the EPA specifically

empowers the Central Government to issue directions in writing to any

person, officer or any authority to attain the objects of the Act. Where


28/46

28

such directions are issued, the recipient of the directions is bound to

comply with the direction.

41. In the exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the

EPA, the Central Government has framed:

a) The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules,

2000 (MSW Rules); and

b) The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 (PW

Rules).

42. Rule 4 of the MSW Rules provides that every Municipal Authority shall

be responsible for implementation of the provisions of these Rules and

for infrastructure development in respect of the collection, storage,

segregation and disposal of municipal solid wastes. Rule 5 provides that

the Secretary of the Department of Urban Development of the concerned

State or Union Territory shall have the overall responsibility for

enforcement of the provisions of the MSW Rules in metropolitan cities.

Elsewhere, the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the

concerned district has overall responsibility for enforcement of the

provisions of the Rules within the district. Rule 7 mandates that

municipal solid wastes generated in a city or a town shall be managed

and handled in accordance with the compliance criteria and procedure

laid down in Schedule II. Schedule II provides, inter alia,

Schedule II

Management of Municipal Solid Wastes

Sl.No. Parameters Compliance Criteria

1. Collection

of

MunicipalSolid

Wastes

1. Littering of Municipal Solid Wastes shall be

prohibited in cities, towns and in urban areas

notified by the State Governments. To prohibitlittering and facilitate compliance, the following

steps shall be taken by the municipal authority,


29/46

29

namely

(i) Organising house-to-house collection of

municipal solid wastes through any of the

methods, like community bin collection

(central bin), house-to-house collection,collection on regular pre-informed timings

and scheduling by using bell ringing of

musical vehicle (without exceeding

permissible noise levels);

* * *

(viii) Stray animals shall not be allowed to move

around waste storage facilities or at any

other place in the city or town and shall be

managed in accordance with State laws.

The division of responsibilities under the MSW Rules are summarized in

the following table:

S.No Agencies/ Authorities Responsibility

1 Municipal Authorities i. Ensuring that municipal solidwastes to be handled as per

rules.

ii. Seeking authorization from

State Pollution Control Board

(SPCB) for setting up waste

processing and disposal

facilities including landfills.

iii. Furnishing annual report.iv. Complying with Schedule I, II,

III and IV of the rules

2

(i)

(ii)

State Government

Secretary In-Charge of

Department of Urban

Development

District Magistrates/Deputy

Commissioner

Overall responsibility for theenforcement of the provisions ofthe rules in the metropolitan cities.

Overall responsibility for the

enforcement of the provisions of

the rules within the territorial

limits of their jurisdiction.3 Central Pollution Control

Board

i. Co-ordinate with State Boards

and Committees with reference


30/46

30

to implementation and review

of standards and guidelines and

compilation of monitoring data.

ii. Prepare consolidated annual

review report of management of

municipal solid wastes forforwarding it to Central

Government along with its

recommendations before the

15thof December every year.

iii.Laying down standards on

waste processing/disposal

technologies including approval

of technology.

4. State Pollution ControlBoard (SPCB) i.

Monitor the compliance of thestandards regarding ground

water, ambient air leachate

quality and the compost quality

including incineration standards

as specified under Schedule II,

III & IV.

ii. Issuance of authorization to the

municipal authority or an

operator of a facility stipulating

compliance criteria and

standards.

iii.Prepare and submit to the

CPCB an annual report withregard to the implementation of

the rules.

43. On 4thFebruary, 2011 the Central Government notified the Plastic Waste

(Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. These rules were amended on

2nd

July, 2011 by the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling)

(Amendment) Rules, 2011. Rule 5 The PW Rules, inter alia, prohibits

the manufacture, stocking, distribution or sale of a plastic bag which is

less than 40 microns in thickness. Rule 6 (c) requires that the municipal

authority shall be responsible for setting up, operationalisation and

coordination of the waste management system with regard to plastic

wastes. The municipal authority must ensure that no damage is caused to


31/46

31

the environment. It must also ensure safecollection, storage, segregation,

transport, processing and disposal of plastic wastes.

44. It is respectfully submitted that the provisions of the MSW Rules and the

PW Rules framed under the EPA make it clear that the Respondent

authorities are obliged to ensure that the disposal of plastic waste is done

in a safe manner and does not cause any harm. There is a specific

obligation imposed on municipal authorities within the States to ensure

that stray animals are not allowed around waste storage facilities which

include facilities for the temporary containment of municipal solid

wastes. Despite the mandate of the law, municipal authorities in the

Respondent States are failing to discharge their obligations resulting in

cows, bulls and other animals ingesting plastic from garbage bins and

disposal sites.

State Laws

45. The Petitioners state that apart from the central statutes outlined above, a

few State Governments have enacted specific laws to deal with the

problems caused by non-biodgradable garbage including plastic waste.

The preambles of these state laws recognize the ill effects of plastic waste

and the prevalence of plastic garbage that is polluting public drains, water

bodies, wetlands, roads etc. The State statutes include:

(a) The Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act,

1995;

(b) The Delhi Degradable Plastic Bag (Manufacture, Sale and Usage)

and Garbage (Control) Act, 2000;

(c) Maharashtra Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 2006; and

(d) The Jammu and Kashmir Non-Biodegradable Material

(Management, Handling and Disposal) Act, 2007.


32/46

32

The Petitioners submit that despite these state statutes, there is no

effective implementation resulting in a huge amount of plastic litter lying

about in a way that it can be ingested by animals.

Municipal Laws

46. The Constitution (74th) Amendment Act, 1992 inserted Part IX-A into the

Constitution of India. Part IX-A deals with municipalities and Article

243W empowers the legislature of a State to endow the municipalities

with the necessary powers and authority to discharge their functions

enumerated in the XIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The

subjects solid waste management and prevention of cruelty to

animals are specifically mentioned in items 6 and 15 of the XIIth

Schedule.

47. Moreover, specific statutes governing Municipal Corporations and

municipalities within the Respondent States empower these local

authorities to regulate matters relating to the issues raised in this petition.

Municipalities have a primary responsibility to ensure:

a) The provision of receptacles for the disposal of waste;

b) The removal of refuse from the receptacles;

c) The proper disposal and treatment of municipal solid waste;

d) The proper daily surface-cleaning of all streets;

e) The maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene so as to prevent the

spread of disease;

f) The prevention of cattle trespass;

g) The regulation of animals within municipal limits.


33/46

33

E. ANIMAL RIGHTS

48. The constitutional provisions referred to above clearly recognize the duty

of every citizen in relation to animals. Every citizen has a duty to have

compassion for living creatures. The Constitution of India also recognizes

the duty of the State in relation to animals. The State has a duty to

safeguard the wild life and it is also under the duty to prohibit the

slaughter of cows and calves. The Indian Constitution is a charter for the

governance of the people of India and contains goals and benchmarks for

civilized conduct. The duties on the citizen and State confer an

entitlement on animals to be treated with compassion. This entails an

element of autonomy on animals that are not treated merely as property

under the constitutional scheme but are beings with recognized

entitlements. At a minimum, under the constitutional scheme read with

the provisions of the PCA and other statutes, the cow and other animals

have a right to be free of plastic. They have a right not to be exposed to

the destructive effects of human waste, specifically plastic waste.

49. Recent scientific studies in evolutionary biology and related fields of

animal behaviour are blurring the once-sharp distinction between humans

and other animals. There is a growing understanding of the capacity and

ability of certain species of animals to use tools, communicate, express

emotions and even conceptualize the elements of morality. These new

animal studies lend an urgent necessity to interpret laws aimed at

preventing cruelty to animals in a new light and with greater vigor. The

provisions in the Constitution of India point to a constitutional morality

underlying the treatment of animals. All organs of the State are required

by this underlying constitutional morality to ensure that the natural

digestive systems of animals are not destroyed or compromised by plastic

waste lying about in a manner that can be ingested by animals. The State


34/46

34

cannot ignore its constitutional duty and allow cruelty and pain to be

inflicted on animals.

F. JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN THE

CASE OF JODHPUR CITY

50. This Court in Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and

Others (2007) 2 SCC 413 decided an appeal from a judgment of the High

Court of Rajasthan in a Public Interest Litigation concerning the city of

Jodhpur. The Rajasthan High Court had directed that milk dairies located

in Jodhpur be shifted from their locations to alternative sites. Paragraph 5

of this Courts judgment summarises the facts in the case and reads: -

5. It is stated that the owners of the bovine animals, in the

city of Jodhpur, after milching the bovine animals were

turning them out of dairies so that they could eat whatever

was available on the roads. The stray cattle including the

cows, bulls, dogs, etc. freely roam in the city of Jodhpur andin the porch of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, the principal

government hospital in the city. It is further stated that theexcreta of these animals was also visible all over, even in the

corridors of the High Court. This totally unhygienic,

unhealthy and injurious practice was creating considerable

nuisance to the citizens of the city of Jodhpur.

In paragraph 11 of this Courts judgment, a portion of the High Court

decision was quoted. In pertinent part, the quotation is reproduced below.

11. . . . It is surprising that after milching the bovine

animals, the dairy owners turn them out so that they can eat

whatever is available on the roads. Bovine animals in order

to satisfy their hunger even consume plastic. Once plastic

goes in their systems, it causes severe harm to them and

some of them even die. But this is not the concerns of the

dairy owners. Though people consider cow as mother yet the

treatment which is meted out to it is extremely harsh and

cruel.


35/46

35

This Court having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and

in the larger interest of the citizens of Jodhpur issued various directions

including the following: -

4. The respondent State Government is directed to frame

guidelines regarding proper use of plastic bags in the Statebecause a number of deaths of cattle on account of

consuming of plastic bags have been reported. The State

Government is directed to frame necessary guidelines on or

before 31-3-2007;

5. The Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that used

plastic bags and other plastic materials must be separated

from other garbage and destroyed to prevent their

consumption by cattle, bulls and other animals;

It is a matter of common knowledge that the position noticed by the

Rajasthan High Court and this Hon'ble Court in respect of the city of

Jodhpur with regard to stray cattle being turned out from dairies so that

they can eat whatever was available on the streets and these animals

consuming plastic, is a situation that prevails across India. What the

Petitioners here seek to highlight is the extreme cruelty on a nationwide

scale that is being caused to bovine animals as a result of wide spread

plastic pollution and non-implementation of municipal solid waste

regulations. The material placed on record by the Petitioners also shows

the scale of violation of the animals natural bodily function in respect of

eating and digesting, resulting in a slow and extremely painful death of

animals in a cruel manner proscribed by law. The Petitioners have also

highlighted the potentially adverse health impact on human beings

resulting from the consumption of plastic waste.

G. GROUNDS

51. In the foregoing part of this petition, a detailed narration of facts and the

relevant provisions of law have been set out. The grounds stated below

draw on this material and for the sake of brevity, particularise the


36/46

36

challenge. In the premises, the Petitioners submit that this Hon'ble Court

issue appropriate writs, orders and directions under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds which are

set out hereafter and are without prejudice to one and another: -

A. The law in India mandates that the infliction of unnecessary pain or

suffering to animals is illegal. This is evident from provisions in

the Constitution of India as well as the PCA, 1960 which was

specifically enacted to prevent cruelty to animals. It is the statutory

duty of all persons having charge of animals as also of municipal

authorities and the Respondents to ensure that animals are not

exposed to situations where due to the neglect or apathy of human

agencies, animals suffers excruciating pain and eventually die. The

facts outlined above establish a very grim situation caused by a

combination of factors that is leading to plastic waste being

ingested by cows, bulls and other animals leading to the destruction

of the animals capacity to digest food and live with dignity on its

natural diet. Animals have a right to live with dignity and to

obtained nourishment from the environment without being

poisoned by plastic waste. The problem of plastic waste clogging

the digestive system of cows has been documented extensively by

the Petitioners on the basis of more than 50 rumenotomies

conducted on cows. As seen from the table set out above over 60

kgs of plastic waste were removed from some of the cows. Each

and every cow on which the rumenotomy was conducted had

plastic in its rumen. In most cases the recovery ranged between 30

and 60 kgs. The Petitioners have also placed on record material

from different parts of the country regarding the problem of plastic

waste being strewn and dumped on streets, open garbage bins and


37/46

37

other places that are accessible to cows, bulls and other animals

that are part of the Indian milieu.

Animals are required by law to be treated in a manner that does not

inflict cruelty or suffering on them. Animals cannot discern

between plastic bags and food. Due to the failure and neglect on

the part of the Respondent authorities, plastic waste is entering the

bodies of animals. The material produced by the Petitioners also

documents the acute pain experienced by suffering animals where

the quantity of plastic ingested is large. In the circumstances, it is

respectfully submitted that due to the inaction on the part of the

Respondents in discharging their Constitutional and statutory

functions, cruelty is being inflicted on animals without cause. It is

incumbent for the Respondents to take all necessary measures

(which they have failed and neglected to take) to ensure that

animals, particularly cows and bulls, do not come into contact with

plastic waste. It is submitted that it is necessary that appropriate

directions are issued to prevent the cruel treatment of animals.

Across the country on the sides of roads, highways, railway tracks;

around garbage receptacles or bins placed by municipal authorities;

and at places where garbage including food and kitchen waste is

discarded in the open, animals forage for food. Plastic waste is

found in huge quantities at such places. It is imperative that the

plastic waste is eliminated, particularly discarded plastic bags that

are ingested by cows, bulls and other animals.

B. The Petitioners grievance with regard to the improper collection

and disposal of plastic waste by municipalities is having a direct

impact on the health and well being of cows and animals. In so far

as the Petitioners are aware, the indiscriminate dumping of plastic


38/46

38

waste on the scale prevalent in India and the interface of plastic

waste and cows is particularly acute in India. Moreover, having

regard to the interface between human beings and animals through

the consumption of dairy products and animal products by humans,

there is a clear possibility of adverse health impacts on human

beings. PCBs are harmful to human health as explained above. It is

probably a human carcinogen. It is documented that PCBs are

present in milk collected from stray cattle that have scavenged for

food in urban streets. There is a clear and present danger of an

adverse health impact on humans arising from animals, particularly

cows, ingesting plastic waste. Unless suitable orders are passed and

appropriate action taken, PCBs are likely to enter into the human

body with harmful impacts. The precautionary principle is

applicable to the present situation. The Respondents are duty

bound to anticipate the negative effect on health of PCBs entering

into the human body through dairy and animal products. They are

also duty bound to take immediate steps to prevent adverse health

impacts on citizens by eliminating the interface between animals

and plastic waste. It is submitted that the inaction and neglect on

the part of the Respondents threatens to violate and violates Article

21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the fundamental

right to healthy living.

C. The inaction and failure on the part of the Respondents to ensure

the proper collection, removal and disposal of plastic bags and

plastic waste amounts to a violation of the PCA, 1960 as well as

specific obligations under the MSW Rules framed under the EPA.

Rule 7 of the MSW Rules mandates that the municipal solid waste

generated in a city or town must be managed and handled in

accordance with the compliance criteria and procedure laid down


39/46

39

in Schedule II. Schedule II expressly prohibits littering of solid

waste. The municipalities within the Respondent States have failed

and neglected to discharge their obligations under municipal

statutes for the proper collection, storage and disposal of plastic

waste. In particular, the obligation to ensure that stray animals are

not allowed around waste storage and disposal facilities as

specified in Schedule II, is being persistently breached. The

Respondents are violating the law by slack implementation or

neglect. Moreover, it is submitted that these failures that are taking

place across the country, amount to arbitrary inaction and violate

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

D. The Petitioners submit that the provisions of MSW Rules and the

PW Rules framed under EPA make it clear that the Respondent

authorities are obliged to ensure that the disposal of plastic waste is

done in a safe manner and does not cause any harm. There is

specific obligation imposed on municipal authorities within the

states to ensure that stray animals are not allowed around waste

storage facilities which include facilities for the temporary

containment of municipal solid wastes. Despite the mandate of the

law, municipal authorities in the Respondent states are failing to

discharge their obligations resulting in cows and other animals

ingesting plastic from garbage bins and waste disposal sites.

E. The Respondent authorities have failed to observe the Plastic

Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 which were

notified on 4th

February 2011 by the Central Government. These

rules were amended on 2nd

July 2011 by the Plastic Waste

(Management and Handling) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. Rule 5 of

PW Rules, inter alia prohibits all manufacture, stocking,

distribution or sale of a plastic bag which is less than 40 microns in


40/46

40

thickness. Rule 6 (c) requires that that the municipal authority shall

be responsible for setting up, operationalisation and coordination of

waste management system with regard to plastic waste. The

municipal authorities are required to ensure that no damage is

caused to the environment by the lack of plastic waste

management. The Respondents are required to ensure the safe

collection, storage, transport, processing and disposal of plastic

waste. It is submitted that the obligation for safe collection,

storage, etc. under Rule 6 of the PW Rules (as amended) implies

safe practices from the stand point of humans as well as animals.

This obligation ought to be interpreted in the context of

Constitutional duties as well as the Parliamentary mandate to

prevent cruelty to animals. The open garbage disposal system in

vogue across the country with plastic waste lying around such that

it can be ingested by stray animals violates the PW Rules and

ought to be discontinued forthwith.

F. The consequence of the neglect on part of the Respondents in

faithfully implementing the MSW Rules and the PW Rules is that

there is no proper segregation or disposal of plastic waste. This

neglect is resulting in a continuing interface between animals and

plastic bags that have been discarded. It is respectfully submitted

that even the statutory provisions that exist are being ignored by

the Respondent authorities who are not enforcing the Rules framed

under the EPA.

The paramount duty of the State may be traced to Article 47 of the

Constitution of India which obliges government to raise and

improve the standard of public health. This is declared by Article

47 to be one of the primary duties of the State. This Court has in


41/46

41

numerous judgments issued directions to enforce this public duty

where statutory authorities and municipalities have failed and

neglected in their task of removing municipal solid waste. The

thrust of this petition is to place before the court material which

shows a country-wide failure on the part of the authorities to

effectively remove plastic waste and the direct impact this has on

animals. It is submitted that the evidence brought on the record by

the Petitioners clearly establishes the failure of the Respondents to

safeguard minimum standards of public health.

G. Apart from domesticated animals such as cows and bulls being

adversely impacted by plastic waste, wild animals are also severely

affected. The Petitioners have placed on record affidavits,

testimonies and news reports with regard to wild animals suffering

due to ingestion of plastic bags. The case of turtles being harmed

by plastic bags along the East Coast of India shows how plastic

waste discarded into rivers, nallas and waterbodies find their way

into the ocean. A media report in the Deccan Chronicle on 15th

June, 2011 (annexed to this petition) shows monkeys rummaging

through plastic bags and records the opinion of G.H.M.C. Chief

Veterinary Officer, Mr. Venkateshwara Reddy who estimated that

nearly 5000 cattle, stray dogs and other animals die in Andhra

Pradesh after eating plastic carry bags containing food. A report in

the Times of Indiaon 24thApril, 2002 stated that the Bannerghatta

National Park near Bangalore had recently lost 18 sambars and

deer due to blockage of their rumenoratiular passage by thin plastic

eaten by the animals. Clogged plastic balls were found in the

stomachs of the dead animals. The India Environmental Portal

carries a report from the Pioneer (New Delhi edition dated


42/46

42

20.06.2002) stating that bits of plastic were found in the stomach of

a 3 year old leopard who was caught.

H. DEMAND FOR JUSTICE

52. By separate letters dated February ____2012, the 4thPetitioner addressed

Respondent Nos. 1 and 19, highlighting some of the principal issues

raised in this petition and sought appropriate action to redress the

Petitioners grievances. In particular, the letters contained details of the

rumenotomies conducted on cows and urged the Respondent authorities

to take necessary action. The letter emphasized the national dimension of

the problem and requested urgent measures to prevent further harm to

animals and humans. Copies of the letters dated ______ February 2012

addressed to Respondent Nos. 1 and 19 are hereto annexed and marked as

Annexure P 30 and P-31 respectively.

53. The Petitioners have not received any reply or response to their letters

dated ______February, 2012. The Petitioners have demanded justice but

justice has been denied to them. It is submitted that the Respondents are

under a public duty to take necessary steps to eliminate or substantially

reduce the problem outlined in this petition. The Respondents have failed

and neglected to discharge their public duties.

I. JURISDICTION

54. This Petition is preferred directly to this Hon'ble Court under Article 32

of the Constitution of India having regard to the violation of Article 14

and 21 as explained above. Having regard to the nationwide dimension of

the issues raised in this Petition and the extreme cruelty being caused to

animals by destroying the integrity of their natural digestive system, this

Hon'ble Court ought to entertain and hear the present Petition. Moreover,


43/46

43

there is a severe potential adverse health impact that human beings are

likely to suffer as a consequence of animals ingesting plastic.

55. The Petitioners State that the 2nd

Petitioner Society of which the 5th

Petitioner is the President has filed writ petitions before the Andhra

Pradesh High Court relating to pollution caused by plastic bags. Writ

Petition No. 19225 of 2000 seeking a ban on the manufacture, sale, use

and circulation of plastic/polythene bags in commercial establishments

was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court

on 27.12.2001. The High Court in its order recorded that having regard to

a government order dated 30.03.2001 which imposed restrictions on the

use of plastic carry bags in Andhra Pradesh, no further directions were

necessary. A copy of the order dated 27.12.2001 passed by the Andhra

Pradesh High Court is annexed as Annexure P - 32 hereto. More recently,

the 2nd

Petitioner Society has filed Writ Petition 9852/2010 seeking a ban

on plastic bags and also seeking directions for the proper collection of

waste by municipal administrations within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

This writ petition is pending before the High Court and no effective

directions have been passed till date.

56. The issues raised in the present petition and the factual foundation drawn

from the experience from veterinary surgeons from across the country,

make this petition distinct and different from the earlier cases, though

there may be some areas of overlap. The problem is of a national

magnitude and is not confined to State of Andhra Pradesh alone. The

present petition is being filed as a public interest litigation and it is

respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may admit the case and

issue appropriate directions.


44/46

44

J. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

57. Plastic bags are not biodegradable. The bags when discarded are easily

ingested by animals. This causes acute pain to animals, chokes their

digestive system, and frequently results in death. The treatment ofanimals in this manner is cruel and harsh and is proscribed. It is submitted

that urgent injunctive relief and directions as more particularly prayed for

hereafter are necessary and are in the public interest. For the reasons set

out above, the Petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case which

necessitates the grant of interlocutory relief. The balance of convenience

is clearly in favour of the Petitioners and the interest of the public atlarge.

K. RELIEF

58. In the premises, the Petitioners pray:

a) That this Hon'ble Court issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, ordering and

directing: -

(1) the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate directions under

Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic bags in all

municipalities and municipal corporations;

(2) the 1stRespondent to issue appropriate directions to all State

Governments and municipalities / municipal corporations to

forthwith prohibit and /or to phase out in a time bound

manner the open garbage disposal system and to remove

open garbage receptacles;

(3) the 1st Respondent to issue appropriate directions to State

Governments, municipal corporations and municipalities

requiring them to implement door to door garbage collection


45/46

45

and to ensure that waste storage facilities are built and

managed such that animals are not allowed to move around

in the vicinity of such facilities;

(4) the 1st Respondent issue appropriate directions to State

Government / Municipal Corporation and municipalities to

require segregation of all plastic waste across the municipal

solid waste collection and disposal chain/systems; and

(5) the Respondent State Governments to issue appropriate

directions prohibiting the use, sale and disposal of plastic

bags in all municipalities and municipal corporations within

their territory.

(6) the 1st Respondent and the 19

th Respondent to provide

animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for

stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honble

Court be pleased to order and direct:

(1) That proper garbage receptacles be provided in all cities and

towns covered by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management

and Handling) Rules, 2000 such that waste is not exposed to

the open atmosphere and stray animals are not allowed to

move around the waste storage facilities;

(2) That all Respondent States and Municipalities do conduct asurvey of the existing waste collection and disposal facilities

in their jurisdictions and prepare time bound plans for door

to door collection of municipal waste;

(3) That in all cities and towns, door to door collection of waste

be implemented within 6 months or such period as this Court

deems appropriate;

(4) That the 1st Respondent and the Respondent States do

implement the provisions of Schedule II for the collection,


46/46

46

segregation and disposal of municipal solid waste within 6

months or such time as this Court deems appropriate;

(5) That the 1st Respondent and the 19

th Respondent provide

animal shelters, rescue homes and veterinary services for

stray cattle to provide amelioration for suffering animals;

(c) Provide for such further and other relief, both interim as well as

final, as the facts and circumstances of the case require; and

(d) Costs

Documents

Ban on Plastic Petition