Knowingly Importing Solid Waste Into India Aggravated Form Of “Deshdroh” & Endangers Sovereignty: Madras High Court

The Court was hearing connected writ petitions filed by paper manufacturing companies after customs authorities confiscated consignments imported as waste paper, imposed penalties, and directed re-export on finding that the containers contained municipal solid waste, including plastic bottles, street sweepings, broken glass bottles, food-paper waste, plastic parcels and used soft-drink cans.

A Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held: “If any person knowingly designs, imports, or aids in importing and throws trash on Bharath Matha, it is not just an offence under the Environment Protection Act, 1985 alone, but it is a direct challenge to her sovereignty. There cannot be a more aggravated form of deshdroh. When the right to life and self-esteem of every citizen of the Country, living organism and ecosystems are involved, certainly it is an act endangering sovereignty. From the date of coming into force of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the act amounts to an offence punishable under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

Advocate Hari Radhakrishnan appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Solicitor General K. Govindarajan appeared for the Union of India.

Background

The petitioners, engaged in paper manufacturing, had imported consignments declared as waste paper under authorisations issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Upon examination, the authorities found that the containers did not contain only waste paper but municipal solid waste, including used PET bottles, street sweepings, waste food-paper and plastic parcels, broken glass bottles, waste plastic and paper containers, and used soft-drink cans. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also confirmed that the cargo consisted of municipal solid waste.

The adjudicating authorities ordered confiscation, imposed penalties and directed re-export to the exporting country at the importers’ cost. The importers later sought permission to re-export the goods to Dubai, relying on communications from foreign suppliers. They also sought waiver of detention and demurrage charges and, in the alternative, permission to dispose of the goods within India.

The customs authorities opposed the petitions, contending that waste paper consignments containing municipal solid waste or impermissible contaminants had to be re-exported to the exporting country. The shipping liner and Container Freight Stations opposed the waiver of charges, submitting that the detention arose from misdeclaration and import of prohibited goods.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the validity of the adjudication orders, Rule 15(2) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, India’s obligations under the Basel Convention, the effect of detention and demurrage waiver certificates under cargo and sea manifest regulations, and the environmental and penal consequences under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Re-Export Under Rule 15(2) Must Be To The Country Of Origin

The Court held that Rule 15(2) of the 2016 Rules did not permit the petitioners to send the consignments to Dubai merely because it was commercially convenient. It held that “re-export” means return of the waste to the country from which it originated.

The Court observed: “A plain reading of Rule 15(2) makes it evident that the expression employed by the Rule-making authority is 're-export'. The significance of the expression cannot be overlooked. What the petitioners had undertaken was the import of the consignments into India. If the legislative intent had been to permit the consignments to be sent to any third country of the importer's choice, the Rule would have employed the expression "export" and not "re-export". The very use of the term "re-export" necessarily connotes the return of the waste to the country from which it originated or from where it was exported to India.”

The court stated that the adjudicating authority had made a categorical finding that the petitioners had imported municipal solid waste under the guise of waste paper. It held that the offending consignments had to be returned to their countries of origin.

Basel Convention And 'Waste Colonialism'

The Court then examined the 2016 Rules in light of India’s international obligations under the Basel Convention, observing that the framework was intended to prevent unlawful transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes.

The Bench held: “The phenomenon, often described as 'waste colonialism', refers to the practice whereby developed countries, either directly or through unscrupulous exporters, seek to shift the burden of disposal of hazardous, toxic or other undesirable waste to developing nations, thereby externalising the environmental and social costs associated with such waste. Such practices not only undermine environmental justice but also pose a serious threat to the ecological security and public health of the receiving countries. Above all, it is a direct affront on the very sovereignty of the country and as such is rightly termed as 'colonialism'.”

Rejecting the prayer for re-export to Dubai, the Court held that the unlawful import of waste cannot be remedied through another legally untenable route.

The Court remarked: “Therefore, upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the obligations flowing from the Basel Convention, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' request to re-export the consignments to Dubai is legally untenable and cannot be countenanced. One illegality cannot be rectified by facilitating another. Accordingly, the prayer seeking permission to re-export the consignments to Dubai stands rejected.”

India Can't Be Made A Disposal Destination

The Court also rejected the alternative prayer to dispose of the waste within India, holding that the statutory framework was designed precisely to prevent India from becoming a destination for waste generated elsewhere.

The Court emphasised: “At the outset, this Court finds the said prayer wholly misconceived. The regulatory framework governing transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes has been devised precisely to prevent India from becoming a destination for the disposal of waste generated elsewhere. The petitioners, in effect, seek permission to retain within India consignments found to contain municipal solid waste and thereafter channel them for disposal through cement kilns, waste-to-energy facilities, or other authorised agencies. Such a course would be fundamentally inconsistent with the object and purpose of the statutory scheme banning the import of waste materials.”

The Court held that the Office Memorandum relied on by the petitioners did not apply to expressly prohibited categories such as municipal solid waste, biomedical waste and post-consumer domestic waste. Referring to State of Telangana and others v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (2024) also noted that the environment and ecosystems are subjects with fundamental rights to exist, survive and thrive.

The Bench added: “Further, any such prayer to make this great country as the 'disposal destination' should be held against not only the sovereignty of the Country but would be offensive to the basic right to life of every citizen, the ecosystems of this Country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Telangana and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim has held that the environment and ecosystems of this country are not just objects for protection but are subjects with fundamental rights to exist, survive and thrive. Article 48-A obligates the protection of the environment and biodiversity. Thus, such a prayer would run counter to every declared tenet of legal policy and basic law, human rights and rights of every living organism and ecosystem of our Nation and thus has to be declared as opposed to public policy and illegal and should not be permitted. There could have been aberrations in the past, but mistakes have to be corrected and cannot be perpetuated.”

Charges Cannot Justify Retaining Waste in India

The Court held that the importers remained liable to pay detention, demurrage and allied charges because adjudication had ended against them. Relying on M/s.K.Steamship Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s.Balaji Dekors (2024), it held that waiver certificates could not survive where the importer was found guilty of misdeclaration or import of prohibited goods.

At the same time, the Court clarified that financial disputes cannot be used to keep municipal waste within Indian territory.

The Court underscored: “However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it must be noted that, in law, solid municipal waste dumped into India is required to be re-exported within 90 days from its arrival at the Port. In the present case, the waste has remained at the Port since the year 2022 and has continued to lie there for nearly four years. Therefore, while the petitioners remain liable to pay the charges claimed by the Container Freight Stations, the containers shall not be detained merely on account of non-payment of the charges. If the petitioners fail to pay the same, it is always open to the Container Freight Stations to recover the amounts due in the manner known to law by initiating appropriate recovery proceedings. They cannot retain municipal waste in India to recover their dues. Everyone concerned has an obligation to see to it that the containers are off the shores of India and also reach the ports of origin.”

On shipping liner charges, the Court referred to Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2014), Muscles Fusion FZE v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (2017), and Global Impex and Others v. Manager, CELEBI (2019), while holding that the petitioners must bear freight and agreed charges. It also noted the authorised carrier’s statutory responsibility under Regulation 10(1)(g) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018.

Environmental And Penal Consequences

The Court held that import of municipal solid waste or other pollutant waste in contravention of the 2016 Rules attracts consequences under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, including prosecution.

The Court held: “Whenever any person imports solid municipal waste, or any other pollutant waste, into India in contravention of the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the consequences contemplated under the Act would follow. Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, for violations of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, or directions issued thereunder.”

On Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Court clarified that whether the provision applies would depend on proof that the act was knowingly or purposely done so as to endanger sovereignty.

The Bench highlighted: “… a careful reading of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, shows that these dastardly acts amount to an offence. Whether the facts of a particular case attract the provisions of Section 152 would necessarily depend on the most important ingredient, namely, knowingly or purposely endangering the sovereignty. If, upon investigation by the customs authorities, the finding is that it was knowingly and purposely done, then prosecution should be initiated by forwarding a complaint to the jurisdictional police. In the present-day scenario, unless prompt action is taken by way of prosecution under the Environment Protection Act, 1985, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the menace will continue unabated.”

Systemic Measures And Source Segregation

The Court also referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on abandoned containers carrying waste and prohibited materials, observing that the issue was neither isolated nor recent and that financial considerations alone cannot determine the response.

It directed consideration of policy changes to expressly mandate re-export of prohibited waste streams and indicated that repeated conduct by foreign exporters should be taken up diplomatically.

The Court remarked: “Having regard to India's international treaty obligations, instances involving exporters from foreign jurisdictions who repeatedly indulge in such practices must also be taken up through appropriate diplomatic channels. The issue may be raised during bilateral engagements through the concerned Embassies and appropriate authorities of the exporting countries, with a request that action be taken against such exporters in accordance with their domestic laws. Wherever the existing international mechanisms permit, such issues shall be promptly flagged through diplomatic channels immediately upon detection of the offending consignments, so that effective remedial measures can be undertaken.”

The Court finally addressed domestic source segregation, observing that dependence on imported waste paper can be reduced only if waste paper generated within India is properly segregated and made available for recycling.

The Court concluded: “Further, it was argued, by placing reliance on certain Research Articles, that even though a huge amount of solid waste is generated, not all waste paper is segregated and made available to the industries that need waste paper as raw materials for their products, which only leads towards the policy of import. It is also contended that only because of the imports, the need is reduced, resulting in non-segregation. Thus, it is a vicious cycle. We, as the citizens of this country, have a bounden duty to source-segregate the solid wastes, and only by a robust process of realisation that entire waste paper is available for these recycling industries can the very import be given up. Thus, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Director General of Foreign Trade, and the concerned Ministry shall consider the issue of reframing the policy, improve the segregation output of the wastepaper, prevent its burning, and improve its availability for recycling.”

Conclusion

The Madras High Court rejected the petitioners’ prayers and directed them to take all necessary steps to re-export the goods to the respective ports of origin within 60 days. It held that Container Freight Stations may raise invoices and demand detention or demurrage charges from the petitioners, but re-export cannot be obstructed on account of such disputes.

The Court directed that if the containers are not re-exported within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 50,000 each per day from the 61st day, applying the Polluter Pays Principle, until the waste is re-exported. It further directed that if re-export is not completed within time, the authorised person under the Environment Protection Act must take steps to prosecute the petitioners, their directors and other responsible persons.

Cause Title: M/s Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2215)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocate Hari Radhakrishnan

Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel R. Gowri Shankar, Advocate Madhuri Donti Reddy, Advocate P. Giridharan, Advocate S. Meeankshi Sundaram and Deputy Solicitor General K. Govindarajan

Click here to read/download Judgment