The Madras High Court accepted that anyone breaking the terms of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 should be contained under the category of “Goondas” under the Act.
Case Title: State v RS Rajesh
Case No: Crl.R.C(MD)No.957 of 2023
Decided on: 15th November, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Facts of the Case
On May 27, 2023, the respondents committed the heinous act of carrying biomedical trash from Kerala to Kuruvankottai village via the Alangulam-Tirunelveli route, in flagrant violation of environmental and public health laws. This action was in clear violation of both Rule 4 of the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Rule 8 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. The local Health Inspector, who functioned as the de facto complainant, questioned the respondents about this flagrant disobedience to regulations. The respondents not only failed to offer a plausible explanation, but they also engaged in criminal intimidation, impeding the Health Inspector’s ability to carry out his official duties.
The result was the filing of a thorough legal case against the respondents, which included accusations under several statutes, such as Section 294(b) for obscenity, Section 353 for assault or use of unlawful force, Section 506(ii) for criminal intimidation, Section 269 for carelessness that resulted in the spread of infection, and Section 270 for a malicious act.
Furthermore, allegations were made in accordance with Rule 8 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Rule 4 of the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. The State stressed that it is expressly forbidden to transport biomedical waste more than 75 km away from the hospital. Subsequently contempt petition had been filed. A division bench had ordered the government to impose a total restriction on the transfer of biomedical waste from Kerala to Tamil Nadu in response to the contempt suit. The respondents were accused of purposefully breaking court orders and extant regulations by deliberately disposing of large amounts of biomedical waste in defiance of these clear legal mandates. The State made a strong case that the trial judge erred in law when she decided to give the respondents interim custody.
Legal Provisions
The charges pertain to the breach of legal provisions outlined in Section 294(b) (Obscenity) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force) and Section 506(ii) (Criminal intimidation) and Section 269 (Negligence by spreading infection) and Section 270 (Malignant act), Rule 4 of the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Rule 8 of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016
Issues
Can individuals found in violation of the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, specifically those engaged in the unauthorized dumping of medical waste, be categorized within the definition of ‘Goonda’ as per Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982?
Courts analysis and decision
The court took a strong stance on the issue in its observations, stating that the respondents had willfully violated regulations that forbade the transportation of biomedical waste more than 75 kilometres, endangering both the environment and the general population. The court condemned the discharge of vehicles implicated in such malpractices and stressed the need to deal sternly with such actions in light of such infractions. The court expressed dissatisfaction of the trial judge’s decision to release the vehicles and argued that the respondents had broken both an injunction order issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court and the Bio-medical Waste Rules, 2016.
The court praised the government’s proactive efforts and asked the state to take the necessary actions to propose the necessary revisions to the Act. The court considered it appropriate to set aside the assailed decree of interim custody. In addition, the court suggested that the state move quickly to modify the Detention Act in order to bring it into compliance with the requirement to stop illicit acts pertaining to the unapproved disposal of biomedical waste.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla