New Delhi, Feb 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the opposition to the transportation and disposal of 337 metric tonnes of toxic waste from the Bhopal gas tragedy site to a facility in Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh, stating that the petitioners were following the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Backyard) principle.
A bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai dismissed the pleas filed by residents of Pithampur and civil rights organisations challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated December 3, which had directed the shifting and destruction of the hazardous waste.
The toxic material had been lying at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant site for nearly 40 years after the 1984 methyl isocyanate gas leak, which resulted in over 5,400 deaths—one of the worst industrial disasters in history.
"You seem to be following the NIMBY principle, that is, not in my backyard. You are saying if they want to pollute, they may do it somewhere else, but not in my backyard. Not in Indore," Justice Gavai remarked while addressing the petitioners.
The court emphasised that the state’s decision to move the waste to Pithampur was based on recommendations from an expert committee comprising officials from the Central and State governments, the National Environment Engineering Institute (NEERI), the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), and the Central Pollution Control Board.
The bench also pointed out that the Supreme Court itself often relied on NEERI’s expertise in environmental cases and acknowledged NGRI’s credibility in geophysical research.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing petitioner Chinmay Mishra, argued that the Madhya Pradesh government was not adhering to safety guidelines in transporting and destroying the waste. He pointed out that the Pithampur facility was privately owned.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for civil society representatives working with Bhopal gas tragedy victims, contended that incineration was not the best method of disposal, as it would not entirely eliminate the toxic waste.
Advocate Jayasree Narasimhan further argued that local bodies were not consulted before the decision was taken and that her client, a local resident, had not given consent for the disposal at Pithampur. "The local bodies were not even represented in the High Court," she submitted.
In response, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court was actively monitoring the case and that the petitioners could raise their grievances before it.
Justice Gavai reminded the court that it was the High Court that had prompted the “lethargic” state government to take action regarding the toxic waste at the Bhopal gas tragedy site.
He further advised the petitioners to present their concerns to the state government, which could then place them before the expert committee for consideration.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the Madhya Pradesh government enquired whether the state could proceed with its first “trial run” of transporting and disposing of 10 metric tonnes of toxic waste in Pithampur, scheduled for February 27. He also sought an expedited release of the court’s order.
Justice Gavai clarified that the Supreme Court had disposed of the case and asserted that its ruling took effect immediately upon being pronounced in open court.
UNI/SNG ARN