Your Roads Can't Stand One Monsoon But Toxic Waste Facility Won't Leak? MP High Court Slams State

While hearing a 2004 PIL for cleaning up of toxic waste from the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy site, the Madhya Pradesh High Court today strongly criticised the State's decision to build a toxic waste containment site merely 500 meters away from a habitable zone.

Expressing scepticism about the containment site's structural integrity to withstand any natural disasters, the court orally expressed; 

"This is a country where roads don't survive one monsoon. Freshly laid down roads. You want us to believe that Indian engineers are going to build this, going to withstand an earthquake? And that those concrete walls of the containment areas won't crack and break and crumble?"

The division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharana and Justice Pradeep Mittal further orally remarked that the UCIL factory too was once considered safely located away from a habitable zone, yet when disaster struck, the factory was unable to mitigate the damage.

"How do you say it is safe? The factory was safe. The factory was safe till the incident took place. It is right in the centre of our city. Of course, maybe when it was constructed, it may not have been, the city grew around it. Yes. But here also, we don't want a situation where you're building, you're holding, you're making a containment area, which is right in the middle of habitation. You're saying it's safe. And you see, in our country, that becomes a little difficult to accept. Nothing is safe", the court said.

Recently, the State had incinerated the said waste at a facility in Pithampur. The residents of the area now fear contamination of water bodies and soil from the residue of the incinerated waste.

"It is undisputed that the residue from the incineration process is also toxic," the Court had previously observed, asking the State to expeditiously examine the issue and consider shifting the containment site.

Today, the State counsel sought to contend that the containment structure is impervious to any kind of breakage, fracture, resulting from any natural disaster. Unconvinced however, the judges said,

"You've got to question yourself. Who are the consultants who are making this? Where is the technology coming from? Is it tried and tested? What is the background, and what is the track record of the company which is acting as consultants? Have you checked into all this? Did you float a bit? Have you floated a global tender calling for consultancy in this?...Don't go entirely on local knowledge, especially if they don't have prior experience in handling this kind of situation, especially."

The judges continued, "When any natural incident occur, your best defence is failed. And in such a situation, having it so close to habitation is unacceptable...We push the state government to find out a place which is further away. You transport this muck that has resulted after incinerating all the beasts, take it somewhere else, and create a storage space somewhere else."

Adovate Sahay Coundhary, appearing for an intervenor, informed the court that they had identified alternative sites for landfills across India, as per data available with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The court directed the State to examine the feasibility of those sites.

Further during the hearing, the Court strongly objected to the State's arguments that only 'some population' resides near the containment site and yet adequate safety measures have been planned. "Whatever the population, you can't refer to them as population. It's almost like saying the children of a lesser God. You can't say that," it said.

The matter is now posted for November 20.

Case Title: Alok Pratap Singh v Union of India (WP-2802-2004)

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath with Advocate K.N. Fakhruddin

For Union and State: Deputy Solicitor General Shrikrishna Sharma and Additional Advocate General H.S. Ruprah

For MP Pollution Board: Advocate Vikram Johri

For Intervenor: Advocates Rahul Diwaker and N.D. Jayprakash

For BGIM: Senior Advocate Avi Singh with Advocates Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Teerthesh Bharilya

For Respondents no 4 and 6: Senior Advocates Kishor Shrivastava and Ajay Gupta with Shiraz Patodia, Divya Sharma, Kumar Thakre, Ashish Singh and Rajeev Mishra