Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a significant environmental ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed two writ petitions that challenged Bihar Government’s total ban on plastic carry bags across the state. The ban, introduced through Notification No. 1153(E) dated 15th October 2018 and published in the Bihar Gazette on 24th October 2018, prohibits the manufacture, import, storage, transport, sale, and use of plastic carry bags, regardless of their size or thickness.

The petitioners—various plastic manufacturers and businesspersons—argued that the blanket ban was unconstitutional. They claimed it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Practice Any Profession or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business) of the Constitution of India. They further contended that the ban went beyond the powers delegated to the State under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and contradicted the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, which permit manufacturing of plastic bags above 50 microns in thickness.

However, the State of Bihar defended the ban as a necessary environmental measure under powers delegated by the Central Government through a 1988 notification issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act. This delegation allowed the State to take environmental protection measures, including imposing restrictions on industries and processes.

The Central Government, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, supported Bihar’s notification, stating that environmental safety justified such measures. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board also submitted that the notification was in line with efforts made by several other states across India.

The High Court carefully analyzed the scope of the Environment (Protection) Act, especially Sections 3, 5, and 23, which respectively empower the Central Government to take environmental measures, issue directions, and delegate powers. The Court also reviewed the evolution of plastic-related rules, noting that the original 1999 rules regulated manufacturing directly, whereas the current 2016 rules focus on managing plastic waste rather than production itself.

Given this legal landscape, the Court concluded that the Bihar Government was within its rights to impose a complete ban. The Court emphasized that Rule 4(1)(c) of the 2016 Rules, which allows plastic bags over 50 microns, only applies where a State permits such manufacture. Since Bihar chose to ban the manufacture entirely, the question of compliance with this rule did not arise.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that State action based on Directive Principles (like Article 48A) cannot override statutory rules. It clarified that while Directive Principles themselves don’t confer legislative power, the notification in this case was a valid exercise of powers delegated under the Environment Act, and merely took guidance from Article 48A, which mandates protection and improvement of the environment.

Finally, the Court affirmed that previous judgments or policy discussions in unrelated public interest litigations do not impact this case, especially when the current notification was not under challenge at the time.

The result: the petitions were dismissed, and the plastic ban remains valid and enforceable across Bihar.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling strengthens the legal backing for Bihar’s environmental policies. By upholding the plastic ban, the Court reinforces the State’s autonomy in implementing environmental protection strategies, especially in the face of escalating pollution and waste challenges.

For the public, it means continued efforts toward a cleaner, plastic-free Bihar. For businesses, particularly manufacturers and distributors of plastic products, it confirms that compliance with the state-wide ban is mandatory, and no exception applies even for plastic items over 50 microns unless specifically exempted (such as for biomedical waste or milk packaging).

This judgment may serve as a precedent for other states seeking similar bans, aligning legal backing with sustainable development goals.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the Bihar Government had the legal authority to impose a total ban on plastic carry bags?
  • Yes. The Court held that the State acted under powers delegated by the Central Government through Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act via a 1988 notification.
• Whether the notification conflicted with the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016?
  • No. The Court clarified that the 2016 Rules regulate waste, not manufacturing. Since the State banned manufacturing entirely, the rules do not apply.
• Can Directive Principles like Article 48A be a legal basis for such a ban?
  • Partly. The Court explained that while Article 48A guided the State’s action, the legal basis of the ban was the delegated power under the Environment Act, not the Directive Principle itself.
• Does a previous court opinion in a public interest litigation bar the petitioners from raising legislative competence issues?
  • No. But in this case, the earlier case was disposed of before the ban was even notified and did not directly address the issues raised here.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2002) 2 SCC 459
• State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal, (2017) 5 SCC 163

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Uma Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 8769 of 2016 (Patna High Court)
• Order of Madras High Court (Annexure R6/2, Bihar SPCB affidavit)

Case Title

Sangita Plastic & Others v. Union of India & Others (with connected cases)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 24358 and 24357 of 2018

Citation(s)

2020 (3) PLJR 284

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For Petitioners (CWJC No. 24358 of 2018): Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
• For Petitioners (CWJC No. 24357 of 2018): Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
• For State of Bihar: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General; Mr. Anshuman Singh, AC to AG
• For Union of India: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General; Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Mr. Anshuman Singh, CGCs
• For Bihar State Pollution Control Board: Ms. Binita Singh, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjQzNTgjMjAxOCMxI04=-EfgDZo2GlCw=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.