0

Object Of IBC is Not To Penalize Solvent Companies For Non-Payment Of Disputed Dues: Reaffirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court

Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) filed an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against HPCL Biofuels Ltd. (HBL), a wholly owned subsidiary of HPCL. NCLT allowed the application while rejecting the contention raised by HBL that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties in respect of the claim. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, on appeal, set aside the order of NCLT which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S S.S. Engineers & Ors. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4583 OF 2022].

S.S. Engineers & Ors. (the “Appellant”) and HBL entered into a contract agreement pursuant to tenders floated by HBL for enhancing the capacity of the Boiling Houses. Purchase Orders were issued by HBL to the Appellant for the work on a turnkey basis. The Appellant raised invoices in respect of the purchase orders. HBL, through mails, disputed any liability of payment alleging that Appellant had been violating the terms of the purchase order and backing out from its commitments causing huge losses to HBL as it had to procure materials from other vendors. The Appellant allegedly also raised invoices for material that were not supplied and that did not renew its Bank Guarantee and delivered poor quality materials.

While all this was communicated to the Appellant by HBL, the latter issued Form C to the Appellant under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Rules 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The Appellant issued a Legal Notice for invocation of arbitration, followed by Demand Notice under section 8 of the IBC. HBL disputed the claim. Nonetheless, the Appellant filed an application for initiation of CIRP against HBL. The NCLT was of the opinion that even if all the amount disputed by HBL is taken into consideration, the amount due to the Appellant shall exceed Rs. 1 Lakh (threshold limit under section 4 of IBC at the relevant time). Moreover, since HBL awarded new work orders to the Appellant subsequently, it meant that all the disputes relating to the contract were resolved. Further, NCLT also underlined the fact that HBL had also issued Form C.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the first instance clarified that the statutory duty of issuance of C-forms under the Central Sales Tax, do not and cannot constitute acknowledgment of any liability to make payment. While quoting from the judgment in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353, the Court reiterated the three questions that need to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority in order to determine an application under section 9 of the IBC – (i) whether there was an operational debt exceeding Rupees 1,00,000/( Rupees One Lac); (ii) whether the evidence furnished with the application showed that debt exceeding Rupees one lac was due and payable and had not till then been paid; and (ii) whether there was existence of any dispute between the parties or the record of pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of demand notice in relation to such dispute. Additionally, the adjudicating authority must follow the mandate of Section 9(5) of the IBC. The adjudicating authority must reject the application under Section 9(5)(2)(d) if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor. What Court has to essentially examine is “…whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence.” The Tribunal shall not examine the merits of the dispute and determine if defence is likely to succeed. The Court also referred to its judgment in K Kishan vs. Vijay Nirman Co. (P) Ltd. (2018) 17 SCC 662 wherein the Court ruled that the “Code cannot be used in terrorem” to extract moneys. It held that “operational creditors cannot use the Insolvency Code either prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures.” Applying the law laid previously by the Apex Court, it was observed that HBL had been disputing the claims of the Appellant which evinces a real dispute in terms of the IBC and thus, there was no reason to interfere with the ruling of the NCLAT.

0

Har Ghar Khadi Ka Tiranga: The New Law w.r.t. National Flag

CommonMan

‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ is a campaign being promoted by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India under the aegis of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to encourage people to bring the Tiranga home and hoist it on their houses from 13th to 15th August, 2022 to mark the 75th year of India’s independence.[1]

Indian Flag was adopted on 22nd July, 1947. The display, hoisting, and use of the Indian National Flag is presently governed by the Flag Code of India, 2002 and Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The Flag Code brings together all laws, conventions, practices, and instructions for the display of the National Flag and governs the display of the National Flag by private, public, and Government institutions. As the law stood earlier, machine made and polyester flags were not allowed to be used and “hand-spun and woven wool or cotton or silk khadi bunting” were only allowed. Further, the import of machine-made flags was banned in 2019 in order to boost the Khadi industry. The tricolour was allowed to be flown from sunrise to sunset only, irrespective of weather conditions.

Not very long ago, the Flag Code of India, 2002 has been amended vide Order dated 30th December, 2021 and National Flag made of polyester or machine made Flag have now been allowed. The Code has been further amended on 20th July, 2022 to state that where the Flag is displayed in open or displayed on the house of member of public, it may be flown day and night.  On 20th of July, 2022, the Home Ministry, Government of India has issued a direction bearing no. D.O. No. 2/01/2020-Public (Part-III) addressed to all the Ministries and Departments of the Government asking them to publicize the said changes to the general public.

In order to boost the campaign, all Post Offices in the country will start selling flags from 1st August 2022. Apart from physically hoisting the flag, the Ministry of Culture has launched a website where one can ‘Pin a Flag’ and also post a ‘Selfie with Flag’ to showcase one’s patriotism.[2]

Ironically, despite such zeal and promotion, the outcome of the said amendment does not seem to be very pretty when one looks at the ground situation. One, the size specified under the campaign is 20×30 inches and 16×27 inches. This is not permitted under the BIS’ standards for the National Flag. Some manufacturers, which are BIS approved, are finding it practically difficult to manufacture the flags as per the changed dimensions. Secondly, the manufacturers of Khadi Flags are shocked on National Flag made of polyester being allowed. According to them the sanctity of the tricolour has been played down rather demeaned by allowing polyester cloth. All those involved in the Khadi and Village Industries are struggling with relatively very less orders or no orders at all. The situation is grim.

Where on one hand, the Government has banned items made of single use plastic, allowing another form of plastic – polyester – to be used for making Flags seems to be an aberration in the overall policy. Also this seems to defeat the objective of promotion of Khadi industry by the Government. Khadi Sanghas have written to the Prime Minister and Home Minister seeking withdrawal of the amendment while they have planned a symbolic protest on July 27. This amendment, however, may have an explanation. One reason of introducing polyester is the difference in price of raw material . Polyester is cheap. Khadi, on the other hand, is facing a steep hike in price (highest in last decade) due to fall in the production of cotton in the country.

In this light, promotion and our support should rather go with showing solidarity with Khadi industry. Demand for National Flags made of Khadi can make a difference. Lets do a “Har Ghar Khadi ka Tiranga” instead of just celebrating “Har Ghar Tiranga” on this platinum celebration of Nation’s Independence Day.

[1] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1844020

[2] https://rashtragaan.in/, https://harghartiranga.com/

0

Supreme Court Upholds Woman’s right to Reproductive Choice, Bodily Integrity And Autonomy: An Unmarried Woman’s Right To Safe Abortion

Constitution of India

“The statute has recognized the reproductive choice of a woman and her bodily integrity and autonomy. Both these rights embody the notion that a choice must inhere in a woman on whether or not to bear a child.” – Supreme Court of India.

The law of abortion in India, as on date, lays down that a Medical Practitioner can terminate the pregnancy, provided, the pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks [Section 3(2) (a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“1971 Act”)]. Where the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, pregnancy may be terminated if not less than two registered medical practitioners, in good faith, are of an opinion that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health or there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality [Section 3(2) (b) of 1971 Act]. The law further lays down the presumption that where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. [Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) of the 1971 Act]

As per Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 certain cases shall be considered eligible for termination of pregnancy under section 3(2)(b) of the 1971 Act. They are – survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; minors; women whose marital status changed during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce); women with physical major disabilities as per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; women with mental illness including mental retardation; Women developing foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the Government.

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Sathish Chandra Sharma, CJ and Subramonium Prasad, J recently came across a pressing question where the Petitioner, an unmarried woman of 25 years, in her interim application in the Writ sought the relief of termination of pregnancy ( being 24 weeks pregnant) that arose out of a consensual relationship. that did not last. The Court dismissed the application and declined the interim relief stating that “As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself.” [Ms. X v. The Principal Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Government of India W.P.(C) 10602/2022 CM APPL. 30708/2022 decided on 15.07.2022]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal against the said order of the Hon’ble High Court [X v. Health And Family Welfare Department, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12612/2022] passed an order dated 21.07.2022 observing that the order of the High court was unduly restrictive. Although the Court observed that Rule 3B of the 2003 Rules does not contemplate a situation involving unmarried women, the Court also did not find any reason to deny the relief to an unmarried woman. The Court cited the following reasons:

  • the legislature has not intended to make a distinction between a married and unmarried woman;
  • same choice is available to other categories of women;
  • the distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by Parliament under the Legislation;
  • The Parliamentary intent, is not to confine the beneficial provisions of the 1971 Act only to a situation involving a matrimonial relationship;
  • Parliament by amending the 1971 Act in 2021 intended to include unmarried women and single women within the ambit of the Act which is evident from the replacement of the word ‘husband’ with ‘partner’ in Explanation I of Section 3(2) of the Act;
  • allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy would be contrary to the intent of the law enacted by Parliament;
  • allowing the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy, on a proper interpretation of the statute, prima facie, falls within the ambit of the statute;
  • Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Act – Explanation 1 expressly contemplates a situation involving an unwanted pregnancy caused as a result of the failure of any device or method used by a woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy;
  • The expression “change of marital status” in clause (c) of Rule 3B should be given a purposive rather than a restrictive interpretation and expressions “widowhood and divorce” need not be construed to be exhaustive of the category which precedes;
  • Now even live-in relationships have been recognized by the Supreme Court. [In S Khusboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 it was held that “Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy.”]

The Court in unequivocal terms has laid down the law that “A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity.”The Court further observed that denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom.

The Court while delivering the judgment relied on Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration [(2009) 9 SCC 1]wherein the Court had held that “If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health”. Similarly, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors, [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the Court had held that the decision of a woman to procreate or abstain from procreating has been recognized as a facet of her right to lead a life with dignity and the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

0

Scope of Judicial Inquiry under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Unequivocally Expanded

Arbitration

Recently, in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2022 decided on 20.07.2022] once again the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed that the judicial inquiry under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not confined   only   to ascertain   as to   whether   or not   a   binding arbitration agreement   exists and the Court cannot mechanically refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court needs to apply its mind and decide whether the arbitration agreement is valid and whether the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause.

As per the ratio in the case, “However, at the same time, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that after the insertion of Sub-Section (6¬A) in Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, scope of inquiry by the   Court   in   Section   11   petition   is   confined   only   to ascertain   as  to   whether   or  not   a   binding  arbitration agreement   exists  qua  the   parties   before   it,   which   is relatable to the disputes at hand. We are of the opinion that though the Arbitral Tribunal may have jurisdiction and   authority   to   decide   the   disputes   including   the question of jurisdiction and non-arbitrability, the same can also be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application if the facts are very clear and glaring and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement   binding   between   the   parties,   whether   the dispute   is   non-arbitrable   and/or   it   falls   within   the excepted clause. Even at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, the Court may prima facie consider even the aspect with regard to ‘accord and satisfaction’ of the claims.”

The Court has essentially maintained the position of law as laid down in DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr and DLF Home Developers Limited v. Begur OMR Homes Private Limited & Anr [both decided on September 22, 2021] wherein it had held that the Courts are “not expected to act mechanically merely to deliver a purported dispute raised by an applicant at the doors of the chosen Arbitrator.” The Court had ruled that the Courts are “obliged to apply their mind to the core preliminary issues, albeit, within the framework of Section 11(6-A) of the Act.” The position of law is an extension of what fundamentally the Apex Court ruled in Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 and if we go backwards, in  Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited [(2017) 9 SCC 729]. The three judge bench in Vidya Drolia explained theconcept of limited prima facie review. The Court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act is extremely limited and is to be exercised in rare occasions only and went on to clarify that although a prima facie examination does not mean full review, the purpose of the scrutiny is to weed out manifestly invalid arbitration agreements and non-arbitrable disputes. Further, it may be that certain cases require a still deeper consideration during prima facie examination but this should be done with measured restraint. The Supreme Court, however, cautioned that the scrutiny made by the Courts should be done only to effectuate the arbitration process.

0

Understanding Plastic Ban In India And Worldwide : Part III

Environment

I still see plastics around!

That is true. Plastics have not been completely abolished.  They are being phased out starting from a few (19) items that have been banned from July 1, 2022 and by increasing the thickness of plastic bags gradually in phases. The Extended Producers Responsibility guidelines notified in February 2022 also sets gradually scaled up targets for plastic recycling, making it mandatory for producers, importers and brand-owners to recycle up to 50 per cent of the plastic they use or produce over the next three years. Even as per the PWMR, any similar notification introducing prohibition in future shall not come into force before the expiry of ten years from the date of its publication.

What is not banned?

All of us know or are fond of Pepsico and Coke drinks/products. However, the less known fact about them is that the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are ranked as the world’s top plastic polluters for the 4th consecutive year in 2021 according to Global Brand Audit Report of Break Free From Plastic.[1] As apparent enough, these bottles are not banned. Further, PET bottles having a liquid holding capacity of 200 ml or more with deposit and refund price or buy-back price under EPR printed on them; recyclable plastic stationery products used at office and educational institutions; thermocol boxes to preserve fish in the fishery business; plastic for packaging of medical equipment and medical products; plastic items like bottles, tiffins and boxes used for domestic purposes; recyclable multi-layered plastic items like chips packets, shampoo sachets, oil packets and chocolate packets; virgin plastic bags used for milk (having a thickness of not less than 50 microns and must be printed with a buy-back price); paper-based carton packaging using one or more layers of plastic; compostable plastic bags used for horticulture, agriculture, plant nurseries and solid waste handling; plastic packaging material with more than 50-micron thickness, a minimum of two grams weight used to seal groceries and grain products at wholesale and retail stores and manufacture of plastic bags for export purposes in export-oriented units and Special Economic Zones – are not banned.[2]

Why are plastics being phased and not completely banned?

Plastics are monstrously destroying life on planet.[3] A shocking 91 per cent of all plastic is single-use which is being used for the last 6 decades. As per US Chronicle, “The problem is so serious that the United Nations has identified single-use plastics as one of the world’s biggest environmental challenges of modern times”.[4] In this background, a natural question ascends that why then single-use plastics are not being completely banned? The answer is not simple. The manufacturers argue that why they should stop producing when there is a clear demand. Consumer lament that they do not have an equally good alternative. The options available are not only inconvenient but also economically unsustainable.  Then the end buyers may not carry the shopping bag every time they are at sale point – there could be unplanned purchases too. Of all the issues, the most pressing is that of lack of an eco-friendly product, which is a complete substitute of the plastic in all uses. Such product has not been found till date.[5] Paper bags are also not the solution. Firstly, the energy required to produce 500 grams of paper (used to make carry bag) is 300 times more than that required for a plastic bag and secondly, it cannot withstand weight and gets easily spoilt especially when it rains.[6] Paper bags are not mostly reusable. In the absence of a suitable alternative, therefore, it shall be impractical nay unwelcome step to impose a blanket ban on the use of plastics or on all items made of single-use plastics.

The increase in thickness of plastics as a Government measure, will have two substantial consequences. The thick plastic is costly to produce. This may lead to less production of plastic bags and even lesser purchase of such plastic bags. There are also chances that if the thickness of certain materials is increased, it will encourage people to re-use those, leading to less littering.

Punishments and Penalties

The production, sale and use of single-use plastic and pollution caused due to its littering is further directly connected to the penalties prescribed under the law and how strictly is the law  being implemented on ground. The sanction for violating the rules is provided in the Environment Protection Act, 1986 under which the two Rules i.e. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 have been formulated. The implementation, however, shall be done by local civic bodies’ who shall take decisions on punitive actions including fines and jail terms through the bye-laws.

Environment Protection Act

As per Section 15 of the Act, the contravention of the use of banned identified single-use plastic items may attract a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or with maximum fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, or with both. In case contravention continues, there may be imposed an additional fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000/- for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. The relevant section has been reproduced herein below:

15. PENALTY FOR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RULES, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS.-

(1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention.

(2) If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.

Are penalties in operation?

Yes, they are. On July 1, 2022, when the nation-wide ban on single-use plastic items kicked in, Mr. Gopal Rai, Delhi Environment Minister said that the penalties for violating the ban will be imposed only after July 10, 2022. For a month, there shall also be a pre-planned pan-India awareness campaign from July 1 to July 31. Accordingly on July 10, in Delhi, a control room to monitor the implementation of the ban has been set up by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC). Any complaint regarding violations can be made to the control room which shall transfer the complaint to the municipal bodies. Additionally, the Revenue Department and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee have respectively constituted 33 and 15 teams to ensure the enforcement of the ban across the State. Any violation shall attract a penalty under Environment Protection Act to be imposed by Revenue Department. The MCD shall separately take action as per the bye-law. Any grievances regarding the violations can also be lodged through the Green Delhi application of the Delhi Government or the “SUP-CPCB” application of the Central Pollution Control Board.

The Delhi Government, on 15th September, 2021, had separately notified Draft of Plastic Waste Management Bye-laws, 2021 applicable within the territorial limits of South Delhi Municipal Corporation, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Cantonment Board.[7] The law defines penalties for various violations totaling to 19 as listed in Schedule-I of the draft bye-laws.

Some municipal bodies in other states like Tamil Nadu have been taking action under their bye-laws much before 1st July. Recently, a Division Bench of Madras High Court was told by the Greater Chennai Corporation that 47,961 shops were inspected and 20,056 kg of banned plastics seized by the authorities between August 19, 2021 and March 18 2022. The Court was informed by the officer of the municipal body that the repeat offenders would be liable for cancellation of their trade license. Such shops would be closed and sealed. The Municipal Corporation is also currently intensifying its endeavor to systematically dispose of the plastics and also create awareness amongst the traders and plastic manufacturers associations. The local body is also distributing cloth bags free cost.

The bye laws governing the functioning of local bodies, including municipal corporations and municipalities in Tamil Nadu – under which Greater Chennai Corporation works – (Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, and Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981) were amended in 2019 and immediately given assent by the Governor. As per the bye-laws, storage, supply, transport, sale and distribution of any of the 14 banned items, including carry bags, cups or plates, would attract a fine of Rs. 25,000 the first time, Rs. 50,000 the second and Rs. 1 lakh the third. Similarly, the use and distribution of such plastics in large commercial establishments, including grocery shops and pharmaceutical shops, would attract a fine of Rs. 1,000 the first time, Rs. 2,000 the second and Rs. 5,000 the third. For smaller traders, the fine amounts are nominal and they would be asked to pay Rs. 100 the first time, Rs. 200 the second and Rs. 500 the third. If a person commits the breach for a fourth time, the trade licence shall be cancelled.[8]

Conclusion

If one goes and sees Nehru Place market today, a prime location in South Delhi, the ground is littered with plastics. Ignore the buzz, if you can for a moment, the place looks like an abandoned one – abandoned by us not the Government. It makes one sad if not hopeless!

However, much has visibly also changed for good. We do not get polybags with vegetable and fruit vendors. Restaurants are using biodegradable/biodesposable  straws. Take-aways are not being given in single-use plastic boxes anymore.

As per a report, teams of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) and urban local bodies (ULBs) issued a total of 119 fines on 11.07.2022 amounting to Rs. 1.23 crore. The actions also lead to shutting factories and market units that were caught violating norms. The DPCC teams inspected 96 units, out of which 59 units were fined and closed. ULBs inspected 529 units across Delhi markets, of which 330 were found violating the ban and 60 were fined. A total fine amount of Rs. 30,000/- was collected by ULBs and around 16,359 kilos of banned SUP items were collected on 11.07.2022.[9]

The issue of plastics will clearly take some time to go but gone it will be in the light of government working in full vigour towards elimination of plastics in phases. The initiative taken by the Indian Government is not a papaya step. If seen against the fact that people have gone unemployed and have lost their businesses across the country in this process,[10] the initiative needs to be supported by one and all to make this worth – because when it comes to plastics that lasts perpetually in the environment, every plastic counts and so does the smallest of initiatives taken by individuals. But beyond these impacts, the ban is bound to also boost the R&D. Along with Government encouraging the innovations, the companies will also be forced to rethink their designs and sourcing of sustainable materials. It should also have a cultural impact where it should help shift consumer mind-sets into not using or littering plastics. In this light, at least one can see a silver lining in the background of the international and national efforts in process and intense work being undertaken at local levels and above all with consciousness of the people.

[1] https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2021/10/25/the-coca-cola-company-and-pepsico-named-top-plastic-polluters-for-the-fourth-year-in-a-row/#:~:text=October%2025%2C%202021%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Coca,for%20fueling%20the%20climate%20crisis.

[2] The list has been taken from https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/india-plastic-ban-do-you-know-what-plastic-products-are-not-banned–resnbc

[3] For statistics please visit https://www.un.org/pga/73/plastics/

[4] https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/reducing-single-use-plastic-pollution-unified-approach

[5] In 2019 there has been an invention of a “fake plastic” by a woman by the name Sharon Barak who is a chemical engineer from Israel. Her product has 100% eco-friendly materials. It feels, looks and functions like plastic, but at the same time immediately dissolves in water. The most surprising part is that such water solution is potable. Her start-up runs by the name Solutum and is available at https://www.solutum.co/. The invention, whenever it comes in the market, may take the world by storm.

[6] https://www.deccanherald.com/special-features/increase-plastics-thickness-but-don-t-ban-them-kspa-767774.html

[7] Available at http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Draft%20Plastic%20Waste%20Management%20Bye%20laws%202021.pdf

[8] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/penalties-for-violation-of-plastic-ban-announced/article26461249.ece

[9] https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-govt-starts-issuing-penalties-for-violating-plastic-ban-rule-101657582400074.html]

[10] After the ban on single-use plastic in the state since 2016, over 2 lakh people have lost jobs directly, and the industry incurred a loss of Rs 800 crores so far. [https://www.deccanherald.com/special-features/increase-plastics-thickness-but-don-t-ban-them-kspa-767774.html]

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15
Left Menu Icon