The Kerala High Court expanding on the precautionary principle, has upheld the existing ban on plastic and similar materials at Sabarimala Forest Region, affirming that the Travancore Devaswom Board's provision of free medicated water through kiosks was a sufficient and safer alternative. The Bench noted that the product’s label, “I am not Plastic” and claims of natural composting, creates a foreseeable risk of increased careless disposal, potentially causing greater environmental harm rather than reducing it.

The Court further clarified the distinction between "compostable" and "biodegradable" plastics under the Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules, 2016, noting that the two categories are not interchangeable. The judgment highlights that materials requiring industrial composting conditions, such as Polylactic Acid (PLA), behave identically to conventional plastics when discarded in natural environments like forest floors or riverbeds.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar while dismissing the petition noted that "green-labelled" products will face the highest level of scrutiny when proposed for use in Critical Tiger Habitats and World Heritage Sites. It observed, “This Court has, over the past decade and a half, developed a consistent and carefully structured legal framework to safeguard this ecologically sensitive region. That framework is grounded in statutory protections under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, and the Environment (Protection) Act, as well as in constitutional principles and established doctrines such as the Precautionary Principle. In the present case, the issue does not call for a balancing of competing interests. The ecological sensitivity of the region, the scale of potential harm, and the absence of compliance by the petitioner leave no room for dilution of the existing safeguards. The protection of the environment must prevail”.

Senior Advocate M. Ramesh Chander appeared for the petitioner and Reshmi K.M., Senior Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.

The matter originated from a petition filed by Swami Saranam Enterprises, a manufacturer of plant-based bottles made from Polylactic Acid (PLA). The petitioners sought a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit the sale of their water and juice products at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, claiming their bottles were "100% plant-based" and "100% biodegradable". They argued that their products offered an eco-friendly solution to the drinking water needs of millions of pilgrims while posing no threat to the environment or wildlife, even if accidentally consumed.

The Forest Department contended that the physical presence of any bottles, regardless of degradability, posed a mechanical threat to wildlife, particularly elephants and birds, who could suffer internal injuries or death from ingestion.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) further highlighted that the petitioner’s products lacked specific certifications for bottles and that the state lacked the industrial composting infrastructure required to process PLA.

The Court's reasoning was anchored in the unique ecological status of Sabarimala, which is situated within a Critical Tiger Habitat and an Ecologically Sensitive Area of the Western Ghats. Scientific analysis revealed that the petitioner’s bottles were not "100% plant-based" as claimed; the bottle caps contained PBAT, a petrochemical-derived polymer.

Furthermore, the Court noted that PLA requires industrial temperatures (55°C–70°C) to degrade, whereas the ambient temperature of the Periyar forest is significantly lower, meaning the bottles would persist in the environment for years. The Bench also observed that the ingestion of structurally intact PLA fragments would be lethal to animals like elephants, whose digestive tracts do not function as industrial composters.

The Bench emphasised that where credible evidence of irreversible damage exists, preventive measures must take precedence over commercial interests. Further upheld the constitutional mandate under Article 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, which obligates the State to protect and improve the natural environment and safeguard wildlife.

“There is an additional and more insidious dimension to the issue. The petitioner’s own labelling—particularly the assertion ‘I AM NOT PLASTIC’ and the representation that the product is capable of ‘natural composting’—is likely to create a false sense of environmental harmlessness among users. A pilgrim encountering such messaging may reasonably, though incorrectly, conclude that discarding the bottle in the forest would have no adverse consequences. This behavioural effect is not speculative; it is a direct and foreseeable outcome of the petitioner’s representations. The scientific inaccuracy of such claims only aggravates the risk. In effect, the product may encourage more careless disposal than conventional materials, thereby exacerbating environmental harm rather than mitigating it”, the Bench noted.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their activity was consistent with conservation objectives.

Cause Title: Swami Saranam Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:31403]

Appearances:

Petitioners: M. Ramesh Chander, Senior Advocate and Adv. Bejoy Joseph P.J., Govind G. Nair, Balu Tom, Bonny Benny, P. M. Rajagopal, Advocates.

Respondents: G. Biju, Standing Counsel, Reshmi K.M., Senior Government Pleader, M. Ajay, T. Naveen, K.A. Salil Narayanan, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: