Lack Of Inter-Departmental Coordination Hampered Establishments For Facilities: Jharkhand High Court Issues Directions To Management Bio-Medical Waste

The Bench emphasized that while a robust legal framework exists, judicial oversight was necessary to overcome administrative stalemate and regulatory paralysis.

​The Division Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed, “In many instances, the "cradle-to-grave" accountability remained a mere paper exercise. Reports from across the country, including Jharkhand, indicate that the lack of inter-departmental coordination continued to hamper the establishment of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTFs) in several districts. Consequently, healthcare institutions, particularly in remote areas, often reverted to rudimentary and hazardous disposal methods. This persistent gap between legislative intent and executive action suggests that mere enactment of stricter rules is insufficient without a robust enforcement mechanism. As we have often observed, when the "procedural mandates" of an environmental statute are ignored, the "vital stake" of the public is directly compromised, necessitating the sustained judicial oversight of this Court.”

Advocate Samavesh Bhanj Deo appeared for the Petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General of India Prashant Kumar Singh and Senior Standing Counsel-I Ashok Kumar Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

A Public Interest Litigation was instituted in 2012 by the Jharkhand Human Rights Conference, seeking robust enforcement of the statutory regime governing biomedical waste. It was prayed that appropriate writs and directions may be issued to ensure that healthcare institutions across the State of Jharkhand strictly adhere to the protocols for the management, handling, and disposal of such biomedical waste.

The petition initially invoked the 1998 Rules, but the 2016 Rules later superseded them. The petitioner sought directions to stop the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous waste to protect public health and the environment.

The court emphasized the gravity of the situation. It defined biomedical waste as infectious materials from hospitals, research, or treatments that posed a significant hazard to life. The court noted that any laxity in handling these substances brought irreversible consequences.

The Court said that the Supreme Court laid the foundation in Dr B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India and Others (1996) by identifying healthcare waste as a distinct peril. Since no dedicated laws existed then, the Supreme Court ordered hospitals to build incinerators or pay for municipal disposal. This ruling prompted the Government to notify the 1998 Rules.

However, the 1998 regime failed due to "administrative laxity." For years, hazardous waste continued to be dumped in public. Consequently, various High Courts and the Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (2000) intervened again, linking environmental protection to the "Right to Life" under Article 21.

The Court said, “Having regard to the statutory architecture now in place in the State of Jharkhand under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, the Jharkhand Clinical Establishments Rules, and the applicable regulatory guidelines, this Court is satisfied that a sufficiently robust institutional framework exists for implementation and enforcement. Consequently, the primary responsibility must necessarily rest upon the designated statutory authorities. However, the prolonged experience of this litigation demonstrates that the mere existence of statutory provisions does not automatically translate into effective compliance…This Court was therefore compelled to exercise its jurisdiction to overcome administrative stalemate, regulatory fragmentation, and systemic inaction to safeguard public health and environmental safety.”

To fix these gaps, the Government introduced the 2016 Rules, which expanded the law to include vaccination camps and blood banks. These rules mandated "cradle-to-grave" accountability through bar-coding and pre-treatment. Despite these stricter rules, the situation on the ground remained stagnant. In Jharkhand, the court observed a lack of coordination and a "continuing pattern of administrative delay." This compelled the High Court to maintain "sustained judicial oversight" since 2012.

The Court reaffirmed that a clean environment is a constitutional imperative, not a policy choice. It cited recent 2026 Supreme Court orders which warned that new rules mean nothing without "preparatory measures."

While the Court acknowledged it should not act as a "perpetual administrator," it justified its intervention because executive inaction threatened public health. The Court said that judicial monitoring was necessary to overcome "regulatory paralysis" and ensure the State fulfilled its obligations.

The Court said, “Thus, the settled legal position is that where statutory mechanisms exist, but their implementation is weakened by administrative inaction or lack of coordination, constitutional courts may intervene to secure compliance and strengthen institutional processes, while restoring primary responsibility to the statutory authorities. It is in this backdrop that the present proceedings were initiated and monitored.”

It said that the directions issued were not intended to create new substantive obligations or to supplant the statutory regime, but were confined to facilitating effective implementation of duties already prescribed under law.

“Constitutional courts, while respecting the doctrine of separation of powers, are nonetheless empowered to issue such facilitative and coordinative directions where institutional inaction or fragmentation impedes the realisation of fundamental rights… Having regard to the progress achieved and the institutional mechanisms now in place, this Court considers it appropriate to issue certain broad directions to reinforce effective implementation of the statutory framework”, the Court said.

The court disposed of the PIL by issuing several mandatory directions to ensure the long-term management of biomedical waste in Jharkhand. It ordered the State Government to appoint a State Level Nodal Officer within 30 days to oversee inter-departmental coordination. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) received instructions to maintain a district-wise inventory of all healthcare facilities (HCFs) and treatment centers, ensuring every facility held a valid authorization and linked to a proper disposal system.

The Court mandated a statewide gap analysis within three months to evaluate infrastructure needs and required the implementation of bar-coding and digital tracking for all waste. The court placed the sole responsibility for waste transport on authorized treatment facility operators using specialized vehicles, strictly prohibiting third-party arrangements. It authorized the JSPCB to conduct surprise inspections and take coercive actions, such as closures or criminal prosecution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, against any violators.

To ensure transparency, the Court directed the creation of a public digital dashboard and a grievance redressal portal. It tasked Deputy Commissioners with ensuring that biomedical waste did not mix with municipal trash and instructed that compliance with waste rules became a mandatory condition for a hospital's clinical registration. Larger hospitals were required to form internal management committees, while smaller ones designated specific nodal officers whose contact details had to be made public.

It was concluded, “In conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that the statutory framework governing biomedical waste management in the State is now operational with adequate mechanisms for coordination, monitoring and enforcement. Judicial intervention was necessitated by administrative inaction. However, continued supervision is neither warranted nor consistent with the principle that primary responsibility lies with the statutory authorities. Having said that, it is made clear that any person aggrieved by future violations shall remain at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with the law.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition.

Cause Title: Jharkhand Human Rights Conference-JHRC v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:5689-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Samavesh Bhanj Deo

Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India Prashant Kumar Singh, Senior Standing Counsel-I Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate Richa Sanchita, Advocate L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate Abhijeet Anand, Advocate Karbir, Advocate Risheeta Singh, Advocate Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Sharon Toppo, Advocate Bhanu Kumar, Advocate Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Saman Ahmad, Advocate Vijay Kumar Roy.

Click here to read/download the Order