Holding

Section 27(2) of the Insecticides Act allows cancellation of registration only for insecticides defined under Section 3(e)(iii) and not for substances specified directly in the Schedule under Section 3(e)(i).

Summary

Dr. Ashok filed a public‑interest petition under Article 32 seeking a ban on 40 insecticides and chemicals deemed hazardous to health. The Union of India set up an expert committee, issued notifications cancelling the registration of certain insecticides and restricting others. Manufacturers challenged the cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Supreme Court held that Section 27(2) of the Act empowers the Central Government to cancel registration only of insecticides defined under Section 3(e)(iii) (preparations containing scheduled substances) and not of substances listed directly in the Schedule under Section 3(e)(i). Consequently, the cancellation of BHC’s registration was beyond the Government’s power, while the cancellation of its formulations was valid. The Court also observed that the Government had taken sufficient steps to ban or restrict the chemicals but lacked coordinated action among ministries, directing the formation of a four‑ministerial committee to meet quarterly. The petition was disposed, and the transferred writ petitions were allowed in part.

Issues considered

The scope of power under Section 27(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to cancel a Certificate of Registration for substances listed in the Schedule (Section 3(e)(i)) versus formulations (Section 3(e)(iii)).
Whether prior consultation with the Registration Committee is a mandatory pre‑condition for exercising the power under Section 27(2).
Whether the steps taken by the Government to ban or restrict the 40 identified chemicals satisfy the petitioner's demand for a total ban.
Whether a coordinated inter‑ministerial mechanism is required for future regulation of hazardous chemicals.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
Insecticides Act, 1968s. 10, s. 11, s. 13, s. 14, s. 17, s. 26, s. 27(2), s. 3(e), s. 3(e)(i), s. 3(e)(iii), s. 4, s. 5, s. 9

Subjects

Public interest litigationInsecticides ActSection 27Certificate of RegistrationRight to lifeArticle 21Environmental healthBan of chemicalsLegislative lacunaInter‑ministerial coordination

Judgment

A DR.ASHOK

c
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 2, 1997
"
B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 32

Health hazard-Manufacture and use of insecticides and chemicals
c detrimental to human health---Already banned in advanced countries-PIL . ...
praying for banning import, production, distribution, sale and use of 40
insecticides and chemicals---Notices issued to different Ministries of Govern-
ment-Appointment of Expert Committee to review their use-Steps taken to
totally ban some and allow restricted use of some other insecticides and
chemicals-Held, Government has taken sufficient steps to ban or to allow
D restricted use of insecticides and chemicals-But no coordinated effort be-
tween different Ministries of Government involved-Constitution of a Com-
mittee offour senior officers from different Ministries for taking coordinated
effort-Directions issued.

E Insecticides Act, 1968: Sections 27(2) and 3(e)(i) and (iii)-Power of
Central Government to cancel the Certificate of Registration-Held, power
can be exercised only in respect of any insecticides specified in section 3(e)(iii)
but cannot be exercised in respect of substance falling under section 3(e)(i)
which is specified in the schedule itself-Thus there is a lacuna in the
legislation itself and steps be taken for appropriate amendment in the legisla-
F tion-Govemment is duty bound to have consultation with the Registration
Committee before the power under section 27(2) is exercised.

Word\" and Phrases :

Right to life-Meaning of in the Context ofArticle 21 of the Constitution
G
of India.

Appellant wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India to ban the .......
import, production, distribution, sale and use of 40 insecticides and addi·
tives which were hazardous to human health. Treating the said letter as
H public interest litigation, notices were issued to respondents through the
14
ASHOK v. U.O.I. 15

c011cerned Ministries. Affidavits were filed by different Ministries of the A
Government indicating that the Government of India had set up an Expert
,~ Committee to review continuance of the use of pesticides in India that are

-
either banned or restricted for use in other countries. The Central Govern-
ment after considering the recommendation of the Expert Committee and
after consultation with the Registration Committee issued notification
B
cancelling the Certificate of Registration in respect of certain insecticides
and chemicals and allowing restrictive manufacture and use of certain
other items.

Writ petitions were filed before the High Court by the manufacturers
-
,,.. of certain chemicals challenging the notification of Government cancelling c
the Registration Certificate on the ground that it was beyond the scope
and powers of the Central Government under section 27(2) of the Insec-
ticides Act, 1968. The said writ petitions were transferred to this Court
-0 and were heard alongwith the main petition.

Disposing the petition; this Court D

HELD : 1.1. There has not been much study and the research on the
harmful effect of several chemicals and pesticides. Though sufficient steps
have been taken to either ban or to allow restricted use of the 40 items of
insecticides and chemicals identified in the petition but yet there is no
E
• coordinated effort between different Ministries of the Government that are
-.'.,
involved. In the circumstances it is directed that a Committee of four
Senior Officers from the four different Ministries involved be constituted
• by the Cabinet Secretary, which Committee should have deliberations at
least once in three months and take suitable measures in future in respect
of any other insecticides and chemicals which are found to be hazardous F
for health. [23-H; 28-F; 29-D]

1.2. There has been constant research on the use of chemicals and
pesticides and its effects on the human health in most of the advanced
countries. On the basis of continued research in the field, several chemi-
cals and insecticides which upset ecosystem have been totally banned in G
USA and other advanced countries whereas in developing countries like
._.... India no effective measure have been taken so far. It is a fact that
pesticides considered hazardous in rich countries remain freely in use in
developing countries. This is because many of the developing countries
lack scientific facilities for toxicological scrutiny as also for making proper H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A cost assessment. It is true that different countries may have different
requirements but it is difficult and dangerous to assume that pesticides
banned or restricted in USA or other European countries wiU be accept·
able in the Third World Countries. [22-B; 26-A-B; 25-G]

1.3. Agriculture was the principal activity of Indians till nineteenth
B century and more than 70% of the population were dependent on agriculture · [
for their livelihood. One of the hurdles in boosting agricultural production
was excessive loss and destruction of crops and food grains by insects and
pests. A need was, therefore, felt to import and manufacture insecticides and
pesticides. Their excessive use for optimising agricultural production
C created alarming danger to health and safety ofliving beings. There has been
much debate over the use of pesticides at the cost of environment and public
health. One will have to weigh the benefit of use of pesticides and the adverse
effect that is produced on human health on account of such pesticides. It
may be true that several such insecticides and chemicals may be required in
certain contingency when epidemics like plague and dengue break. But that
D ~annot be a ground for allowing the industrialists to manufacture such com-
modity when it is established that the use of the commodity is grossly
detrimental to the human health. (25-A; D-E; 26-C; 24-A]

2. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 means right to have something
more than survival and not mere existence or animal existence. It includes
E all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete .
and worth living. By giving an extended meaning to expression 'life' in
Article 21 this Court has brought health hazard due to pollution within it
and so also the health hazards from use of harmful drugs. (26-D; 27-D]

F Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978) 1 SCC 248; Board of
Trustees v. Dilip, (1983) 1 SCC 124; Ramsharan v. Union of India, (1989)
Supp. 1 SCC 251; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 463;
Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 165 and Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, referred to.
G 3.1. The power of cancellation of Certificate of Registration con·
(erred upon the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 27
of the Insecticides Act, 1968 can be exercised only in respect of any
insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 3, i.e. a
preparation or formulation of one or more of the substances specified in
H the Schedule but the said power cannot be exercised in respect of an
ASHOK v. U.0.1. 17
insecticide which is specified in the Schedule itself by the Parliament. The A
Government is duty bound to have consultation with the Registration
Committee before the power under sub-section (2) of Section 27 can be
exercised. [37-H; 38-A; 39-A]

3.2.'Under sub-section (1) of the section 27, if Central Government B
or a State Government is of the opinion that the use of any insecticide
specified in section 3(e)(iii) or any specified batch is likely to involve risk
to human beings or animals and it is necessary to take immediate action,
then on recording reason in writing the sale, distribution or use of the
insecticides or batch can be prohibited for a period not exceeding 60 days.
The Central Government on the basis of its investigation or on receipt of C
the report from State Government and after consultation with the
Registration Committee can either refuse to register the insecticide or
cancel the Certificate of Registration already granted. However, Certificate
f_ .'

of Registration in respect of an insecticide under sub-section 3(e)(i) cannot
be cancelled under sub-section (2) of Section 27. This is in consonance with D
the logic that an insecticide which is the formulation of any one or more
of the substances specified in the Schedule and is consumer oriented,
power of cancellation of registration certainly has been conferred upon tne
Central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does not come
to a consumer and is a substance specified in the Schedule itself and
therefore an insecticide under Section 3(e)(i), the power has not been E
conferred upon the Central Government since the specified substance in
the Schedule has been specified by the Parliament itself. Thus the Certifi-
cate of Registration granted to the petitioners in respect of any formula-
tion namely BHC 10% DP and BHC 50% WP, the order of the Central
Government cancelling the Certificate of Registration is within the juris· F
diction and there is no legal infirmity in the same. But in respect of
Benzene Hexachloride which is one of the substances specified in the
Schedule and as such is an insecticide within the meaning of Section
3(e)(i), there is no power with the Central Government under sub-section
(2) of Section 27 to cancel the Certificate of Registration. [37-C-F; 38-D·G]
G
4. On examining different provisions of the Act, it is found that once
a substance is specified in the schedule as contemplated under Section
3(e)(i) then there is no power vested in Central Government for cancelling
the Registration Certificate issued in respect of the said substance even if
on scientific study it appears that the substance in question is grossly H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A detrimental to the human health. There is a lacuna in the legislation itself
and therefore steps should be taken for appropriate amendment to the >f"'
legislation. [39-D]

B
1988.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 1094 of

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
c
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.N.
Shukla, Jayant Das, A.N. Haksar, V.C. Mahajan, Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui,
C Razvi, R.K. Virmani, Shiv Ram, A.D.N. Rao, D.S. Mehra, A.S. Rawat,
Krishna Srivastava, Shashi Kiran, Anil Katiyar, Tara Chandra Sharma,
Sushma Suri, Rahul Ray, Niranjana Singh, P. Parmeswaran, Ajit Pudussery,
A. Subba Rao, and Fizani Hussain for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
PATTANAIK, J. On the basis of a letter by one Dr. Ashok addressed
to the Chief Justice of India indicating therein that several insecticides,
colour additives, food additives are in widespread use in this country which
have already been banned in several advanced countries as it has been
found that those insecticides are carcinogenus, this Court treated the letter
E as a Petition under Article 32 of the Cp!lstitution and took up the matter
as a Public Interest Litigation. Notices were issued to the Union of India
through the Secretary. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, through the
Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture, through Secretary, Ministry of Industry & Chemi-
F cals as well to Pesticides Association of India through its Secretary Shri
H.S. Bahl and the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association.
The Annexure to the said letter contained 21 chemicals and additives and
a prayer was made that the respondent should be directed to ban forthwith
the import, production, distribution, sale and use of the listed chemicals
and articles so that the citizens will· not be exposed to the hazards which
G the aforesaid insecticides/additives are capable of being caused. It was
alleged generally in the Petition that food, water, air, drug and cosmetic
-
contamination are the general results of the widespread use of the chemical
in question and most of these chemicals have been banned in the United ·
States of America and rest are in the process of being banned. Though
H initially the annexure to the letter contained only 21 items of insecticides
ASHOK v. U.O.I.[PATIANAIK,J.] 19

and additives but by way of an application 19 other chemicals were added A
and thus in all the prayer of the petitioner is to prevent manufacture,
production and use of 40 insecticides and/or additives. Counter-affidavits
were filed on behalf of Secretary, Pesticides Association of India, Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Director General of Health Services, Presi-
dem of the Chemical Industries Association, Madras. A supplementary
B
affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and
Forest. A further affidavit was also filed in August 1989 by the Deputy
Director General of Health Services giving the available information on
the listed chemicals as to the carsinogenicity status on the basis of research
carried out by the Indian Council of Chemical Research. It was indicated
in the said affidavit that the benefits accrued as a result of use of chemicalsc
should be weighed against anticipated risk and the whole issue be ex-
amined in totality before arriving at a conclusion. When the matter was
heard on 24th September, 1996 this Court observed that there has been a
time lag between the filing of the affidavits and the date of hearing of the
Petition and there is no material on record to indicate as to whether any D
further steps have been taken with regard to the control of use of these
harmful pesticides and chemicals and whether any further study has been
made in that regard. The Union of India was, therefore, granted time to
file a further detailed affidavit clarifying the entire position. When the case
was taken up for hearing on 5th November, 1996 it transpired that no
further affidavit has been filed pursuant to the earlier direction and E
therefore, the Court was constrained to pass an order requiring the officers
of different Ministries involved to be present in the Court on the next date
of hearing and required affidavit should be filed. Pursuant to the aforesaid
order of the Court an additional affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture on 18th November, F
1996 stating therein the steps taken by the Government of India in
prohibiting manufacture, import and use of certain chemicals and in
permitting restricted use of certain other chemicals and insecticides. To
the aforesaid affidavit a Notification dated 26th May, 1989 was annexed as
Annexure I which Notification indicates that the Government of India had G
set up an Expert Committee with a view to review continuance use in India
of pesticides that are either banned or restricted for use in other countries.
To the said additional affidavit also annexed a Notification dated 15th
May, 1990 of the Ministry of Agriculture which Notification indicates that
the Central Government after considering the recommendations of the
Expert Committee and after consultation with the Registration Committee H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A set up under the Insecticides Act 1968 cancelled the Certificate of
Registration in respect ofAaldrin, restricted the use of Dieldrin, for Locust ·
Control in desert areas by Plant Protection Adviser to the Government of
India and restricted the use of Ethylene Dibromide as a Fumigant for
Foodgrains through Central Government, State Government, Government
Undertakings, and Government Organisations like Food Corporation of
B India and others. To the said Additional Affidavit yet another Notification
of the Ministry of Agriculture dated 20th September, 1986 was annexed as
Annexure III which Notification prohibited the manufacture, import and
use of Heptachlor and Chlordane and cancelled the Registration Certifi-
cate issued by the Registration Committee to various persons. It also
c prohibited the use of Alderin in India and cancelled the Registration
Certificate issued under the insecticides Act. It further transpires the
Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture by Notification dated 1st
January, 1996 cancelling Certificate of Registration in respect of Benzene
Haxachloride with effect from 1st April, 1997, being of the opinion that the

D manufacture and use of Benzene Haxachloride shall be phased out
progressively and the production of its technical grade by the existing
manufacturers reduced to the extent of 50 per cent by 31 March, 1996 and
totally banned by 31st March, 1997. The Notification also indicated that
the Certificate of Registration in respect of Benzene Haxachloride shall be
deemed to have lapsed in respect of those registrants who are yet to obtain
E .manufacture licences. On behalf of the Ministry of Environment and
Forest, the Director Ministry of Environment also filed an Additional
Affidavit indicating the steps taken by the Environment Ministry prohibit-
ing import of Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Ministry of Health also filed an
additional affidavit and Ministry of Petro-chemicals also filed an affidavit.
F When the case was taken up for hearing on 21st November, 1996 and these
affidavits of different Ministries were placed it was noticed that the af-
fidavits have dealt with 21 chemicals and additives which were listed in the
original Petition. But there has been no response in respect of 19 other
chemicals and insecticides referred to in the additional list. It was also
brought to the notice of the Court that some Writ Petitions have been filed
G by the manufacturers of certain chemicals challenging the Notification of
the Government cancelling the Registration Certificate issued under the
Insecticides Act and prohibiting the manufacture with effect from 1st
April, 1997. It was stated that a consolidated affidavit be filed by the Union
of India in consultation with all the concerned Ministries in respect of 40
H chemicals so that it would be easier to deal with the problem. In response
ASHOK v. U.O.I. [ PATIANAIK,J.] 21

to the aforesaid direction of the Court dated 27th November, 1996 the A
· · Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture
has filed a consolidated affidavit dealing with 40 items of chemicals and
the steps taken by the Government of India in the concerned Ministries
either prohibiting and/or allowing restricted manufacture, use of chemicals
on a thorough study and on receipt of recommendations from the experts.
B
On the basis of applications by Manufacturers, in respect of the Writ
Petitions pending in Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court orders
were passed by this Court to get the cases transferred and those trans-
ferred Petitions were also heard alongwith the main Writ Petition.

Chemicals, besides food, air and water, have always been part of C
man's environments in some measure. Even before the earlier civiliza~ion
·~ or agriculture, the lightning flash caused oxygen and nitrogen of the air to
combine, producing oxides of nitrogen and the said nitrogen dioxide
eventually combined with water and oxygen to form nitrates that sig-
nificantly enriched the soil. Volcanos contributed sulphur dioxide and D
particulates to the air just as fossil fuel burning power plants do today. But
the total contribution df these sources was small and the earth was thinly
populated. With the rise of civilization, the sources of population increased
day by day. Water polluted with lead from the pipes used in the Roman
distribution system is postulated to have contributed to the decline of E
Rome. Miners and metal workers in the Middle Ages suffered occupation-
al diseases from dusts and fumes generated in their trades. As early as in
1713 Ramazzini in his book "Diseases of Workers" has described the effects
of many of these chemical pollutants on workers. When coal was· intro-
duced as a fuel the problem of pollution became much worse with com-
binations of fog and smoke in London becoming most famous. With the
F
recognition of the deleterious effects of chemicals, especially in the
workplace, there began measures for the control of the release of these
materials and the prevention of occupational diseases. The concent~ations
of many of these materials in the atmosphere were quite high. The scien-
tists began research to find out the ways and means to reduce the contents G
of chemical in the atmosphere so as to check the health hazards. In 1945
Warren Cook of Switzerland published a list of the limits with abstracts of .'
the information on which they were based. The United States Public
Health Service established drinking water standards in 1946, Henry Smyth
in 1956 reviewed the researches done in the field and proposed the name H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A Threshold Limit Values for limiting air concentration for the working
environment. The American Conference of Government Industrial
Hygienists every year compiled a list after annual review indicating the
deleterious effect of several chemicals and pesticides on the human health
and the said study is adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health
B Administration of the Department of Labour as a Regulation. Until 1960
there was no legislation and it is only in 1960's the Clean Air Acts were
passed in the United States. There has been constant research on the use
of chemicals and pesticides and its effect on the human health in most of
the advanced countries and the industries also spend a substantial part of
C the money in establishing a research and development organisations. On
the basis of experiments conducted and datas available the use of several
chemicals and pesticides have been either totally banned or have been
permitted to be used in a regulated manner depending upon the effect of ....
such chemicals or pesticides on the human system. In all ages man faced
D difficulty in protecting their crops on the field from small animals and
disease organisms. An insect, a field mouse, the spore of a fungus, or a tiny
root-eating worm is more difficult to deal with. Since these small organisms
reproduce rapidly, their total eating capacity is very great. Small pests may
also be carriers of disease. Malaria and yellow fever, spread by mosquitos,
have killed more people than all wars. Not all insects, rodents, fungi, and
E soil micro-organisms are pests. Most of them do not interfere with people,
and many are directly helpful. Millions of small animals live within a single
cubic meter of healthy soil. Most are necessary to the process of decay and
hence to the recycling of nuturients. Fungi, too, are essential to the process
of decay in all the world's ecosystems. Pests have lived side by side with
F people for thousands of years. At times pest species have bloomed and
brought disease and famine. But most of the time, natural balance has been
maintained, and humans have lived together with insects in reasonable
harmony. In modern times, people are no longer willing to accept these
natural cycles. Human population is now so large that tremendous quan-
G tities of food are needed. One way to increase crop yields is to reduce
competition from insects. Scientists studying a cabbage field in United
States found 177 different species of insects of which only 5 species were
significant pests. The agricultural system is subject to the normal checks
and balances of a natural ecosystem. If left alone, pest species are usually
H kept under control by their enemies. According to an estimate insects ate
ASHOK v. U.O.I. [ PAITANAIK,J.] 23
, • 10 per cent of the food crops in the United States in 1891 and at that time A
very few pesticides were being used. The pest populations were controlled
by insect predators, parasites, and disease. But in the survey of 1970 it was
found that the crop losses to insects rose to 13 per cent. The question,
however, whether it is on account of chemical sprays or whether farmers
would be better off if no pesticides were used at all still remains un- B
answered. There is no dispute that most chemical pesticides are poisonous
to humans as well as to insects. The organophosphates which have been
used extensively in North America since 1973 are much more poisonous
than the DDT which was replaced by such organophosphates. Since mid-
1940s many thousands of people have fallen sick or have died from severe C
pesticide poisoning every year. At present more than half of these are
children who are exposed to the toxic chemical through carelessness in
packing or storage. Most of the others are workers who handle these
materials in the factory or on farms. Even workers working in the factory
where chemicals are manufactured bring the pesticide dust home on their
clothes and they poison the family as well. In July 1975 the Allied Chemical D
Company paid millions in damage suits and the plant was shut down. No
amount of compensation paid in cash could make the people healthy again.
People can avoid exposure to large doses of insecticides but it is impossible
to avoid exposure to contaminants in food, in the air and in drinking water.
Scientists in their anxiety to increase the production capacity of the soil E
and to prevent the food particles from various pests and insects have
invented several insecticides which has caused deleterious effect on the
human health. The broad spectrum pesticides have serious flaws. 'fhey
upset ecosystem, poison people and animal and possibly cause cancer. On
the basis of continued research in the field several such chemicals and p
insecticides have been totally banned not only in the United States of
America but in several other advanced countries whereas in a developing
country, like India, no effective measures have been taken so far. While
examining the affidavits filed in this Court by different ·Ministries of the
Government of India of find out what effective steps have been taken in
prohibiting the manufacture of such insecticides and pesticides which have G
been banned in other countries particularly when its deleterious effect on
the human health is alarming, one thing is absolutely clear that in this
country there has not been much study and research on .the harmful effect
of several such chemicals and pesticides. There is no coordinated organisa-
tion and the lack of coordination between different ministries of the H

j
1
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A government who deal with different chemicals and pesticides make the
people of this country suffer. It may be true that several such insecticides
l
and chemicals may be required in certain contingency when epidemics like
plague and dengue break. But that cannot be a ground for allowing the
industrialists to manufacture such commodity when it is established that
B the use of the commodity is grossly detrimental to the human health. Take
for example an insecticide called DDT. It acts as a nerve poison, paralyz-
ing insects. It has been used to control insects which destroy food and
forage crops and to kill disease carrying insects, such as mosquitoes that
[
!·-

carry malaria and yellow fever and lice that carry typhus. DDT is a residual
poison that retains its effectiveness in a sprayed area for weeks, although
C it may persist in the area for years. It is harmless to most plants. The
chemical was first prepared by Oothmar Zeidler, a German chemist in
1874. Its effectiveness was discovered and recognised by a Swiss scientist
Paul Hermann Muller who won the Noble prize in 1948. It was used heavily
in World War II, particularly in the Mid and South-Pacific theaters by
D spraying mosquito infected areas prior to invasion and occupation. The
spray program continued after the war and was primarily responsible for
eliminating malaria and yellow fever as major diseases. The said chemical,
however, is toxic to people and animals. It accumulates in the bodies of
animals that eat food contaminated with the substance. When dissolved in
organic solvents, DDT can be absorbed through the skin. The chemical
E nature of DDT is not changed by process of metabolism, soil
mico-organisms or sun-light. It is dangerous to birds, to fish and other
forms of aquatic life. Because of its potential danger to human health and
its possible effect on several species its use has been totally banned in the
United States of America by the Environmental Protection Agency since
F 1972. Soon thereafter the said insecticide has been banned in several other
countries including Canada, Sweden and Denmark. But so far as India is
concerned, it is now being produced only by M/s. Hindustan Insecticides
Limited and the Director General of Health Services on getting informa-
tion about the quantity required by respective States for their Public
Health Programme puts it before the requirement Committee and only on
G the approval of the said Committee it is manufactured and sent to different
States. Thus though it has not been fully banned but its manufacture and
use has been controlled. We have taken the illustration with respect to one
of the insecticides only for the purpose of indicating that several insec-
ticides which have been banned in the advanced countries like America
H are still being permitted to be used in this country possibly because of
ASHOK v. V.0.I. [ PATIANAIK,J.] 25
certain necessary. A
:iv~.,

Agriculture was the principal activity of Indians till Nineteenth Cen-
tury and more than seventy per cent population were dependent on agricul-
ture for their livelihood. In the Twentieth Century the country saw
industrial revolution. The rural population started migrating from villages
B
to urban and industrial towns. But yet agriculture holds the dominant
position in Indian economy. The growing realisation of acute problem of
population explosion in India necessitated the policy makers, planners to
make vigorous efforts to optimise agricultural production. The idea of
green revolution was floated and effective steps were taken to mechanise
J(
the agricultural process and to modernise it by using fertilizers and spray- c
ing pesticides in order to achieve self sufficiency in food grains, commercial
crops and other agricultural products. It was realised that endeavour
should be made on war footing to boost agricultural production so as to
fulfil the requirement of food for our teeming millions. One of the hurdles
in boosting agricultural production was excessive loss and destruction of D
crops and foodgrains by insects and pests. A need was, therefore, felt to
import and manufacture insecticides and pesticides to protect crops and
plants from the damage of pests and insects. But the most dangerous crisis
in the present day modern world is that of global atmospheric pollution.
The eco system has become imbalanced by uncontrolled use, abuse and
misuse of natural resources and manufacture a~d use of hazardous E
products and chemicals resulting in endangering the very existence of
human race. The excessive use of chemicals and pesticides for optimising
agricultural production created alarming danger to health and safety of
living beings in general and agricultural workers in particular. The impact
of pesticides use on global environment may vary in magnitude and F
-1 exhibits a variety of behavioural patterns and modes of action. Pesticides
affect man's ecosystem and their residues can get into the food chain. The
amount of pesticide consumed by people depends on the manner of usage
of pesticides particularly on farm crops, storage of the produce and its
processing. In most of the developed countries the use of hard pesticides
on agricultural crops has been either banned or restricted and other pest G
control programmes are adopted in order to maintain eco-system. But the
-f developing countries are still using these pesticides without caring for side
effects on environment. In recent times the Central Government has set up
the Pesticides Environment Pollution Advisory Committee in the Ministry
of Agriculture to review from time to time the environmental repercussions H
A
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

and to suggest measures, whenever necessary. It is a fact that pesticides
considered hazardous in rich countries remain in use in the developing
(
I
countries. Many of the developing countries lack scientific facilities for
toxicological scrutiny as also for making proper cost assessment. It is true
that different countries may have different requirements but it is difficult
and dangerous to assume that pesticides banned or restricted in USA or
B other European countries will be acceptable in the Third world Countries.
In India pesticides are used over the past four decades for crop protection
and control of diseases like malaria. There has been much debate over the
use of pesticides at the cost of environment and public health. One will
have to weight the benefits of use of pesticides and the adverse effect that
c is produced on human health on account of such use of pesticides. 'J.,
. -,

Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 means right to have something
more than survival and not mere existence or animal existence. It includes
all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaingful, complete
and worth living. As has been stated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi's case
D [1978] 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, in the case of Board of Trnstees v. Dilip,
[1983] 1 Supreme Court Cases 124 and in the case of Ramsharan v. Union
of India, [1989) Supp. 1 Supreme Court Cases 251 that it would include all
that gives meaning to a man's life, for example, his tradition, culture,
heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure. In still recent
E cases this Court has given liberal interpretation to the word 'life' in Article
21. And in the case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, [1987) 4
Supreme Court Cases 463 while dealing with a Public Interest Petition
relating to Ganga Water Pollution this Court has observed that life, public
health and ecology have priority over problems of unemployment and loss
of revenue. In the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
F
held at Stockholm in 1972 it was stated that the protection and improve-
ment of human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being
of people and economic development through out the world and it is the
urgent desire of the people of whole world and the duty of all Govern-
ments. It was also stated :
G
"A point has been reached in history when we must shape our
act.ions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their
evironmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we '
can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment
H on which our life and well being depend. Conversely, through fuller
ASHOK v. U.O.I.[PATIANAIK,J.] 27

knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our A
posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with
human needs and hopes. There are broad vistas for the enhance-
ment of environmental quality and the creation of a good life. What
is needed is an enthusiastic but claim state of mind and intense
but orderly work. For the purpose of attaining freedom in the B
world of nature, man must use knowledge to build in collaboration
with nature a better environment. To defend and improve the
human environment for present and future generations has become
an imperative goal for mankind - a goal to be pursued together
with, and in harmony with, the established and fundamental goals
of peace and of world-wide economic and social development." C

What has been stated above in relation to the environmental hazards
would apply with much greater forte when it comes to health hazards. By
giving an extended meaning to expression 'life' in Article 21 this Court has
brought health hazards due to pollution within it and so also the health D
hazards from use of harmful drugs. In the case of Vincent Panikurlangara
v. Union of India, [1987) 2 SCC 165, on a Public Interest Petition seeking
directions from this Court to ban import, manufacture, sale and distribu-
tion of certain drugs this Court had observed 'A healthy body is the very
foundation for all human activities and in a welfare State it is the
obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of condi- E
tions congenial to good health'. The Cqurt in the aforesaid case extracted
a passage from the earlier judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, [1984] 3 SCC 161, which would be profitable to extract herein :

"It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country, assured F
under the interpretation given to Art. 21 by this Court in Francis
Mullin 's case [1981] 1 SCC 608 to live with human dignity, free
from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined
in Art. 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of
State Policy and particularly els. (e) and (f) of Art. 39 and Arts.
41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of G
the health and strength of the workers, men and women, and of
the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and
facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just as
humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A · minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a
person to live with human dignity, and nor State - neither the
Central Government - has the right to take any action which will
deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials."

It was further observed :
B
"The branch with which we are now dealing, namely, health care
of citizens, is a problem with various facets. It involves an ever-
changing challenge. These appears to be, as it were, a constant
competition between nature (which can be said to be responsible
c for new ailments) on one side and human ingenuity engaged in
research and finding out curative processes. This being the situa-
tion, the problem has an ever-shifting base. It is commonplace that
what is considered to be the best medicine today for treatment of
a particular disease becomes out of date and soon goes out of the
market with the discovery or invention of new drugs. Again what
D is considered to be incurable at any given point of time becomes
subjected to treatment and cure with new finds. There is yet
another situation which must be taken note of as human knowledge
expands and marches ahead. With the onward march of science
and complexities of the living process hitherto unknown diseases
E are noticed to meet new challenges, new drugs have to be found.
In this field, therefore, change appears to be the rule."

It is necessary to examine the present problem arising out of use of
pesticides and other chemicals which on account of its adverse effects on
human health has already been banned in other advanced countries. On
F examining the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the different Ministries
of the Government it appears to us that though sufficient steps have been
taken to either ban or to allow restrictive use of these insecticides but yet
there is no co-ordinated effort and different Ministries of the Government
of India are involved. It also further transpires that there has been no
G continuous effort to have research or to have minimum information about
the adverse effects of the use of such pesticides and other chemicals as a \
result of which people at large of this country suffer to a great extent. As
it is on account of lack of capacity of the people of the country to afford
good and nutritious food, the average standard of human health is much
.j
H below as compared to other advanced countries. In addition to that if
ASHOK v. U.0.1. [ PATIANAIK,J.] 29

.~ insecticides and chemicals are permitted to be freely used in protecting the A
.., food-grains and in increasing the agricultural production then that will
bring insurmountable hazards to all those country-men who consume those
food articles. To check these maladies what is essential for the Government
of India is to have a co-ordinated and sustained effort. In this age of
computerisation and inter-linking of the countries through internet it does B
not take more than a couple of minutes to gather the necessary information
in respect of any particular insecticide or pesticide and how such com-
modities have been dealt with in other advanced countries. What is really
essential is a genuine will on the part of the Administrative machinery and
a conjoined effort of all .the Ministries concerned. On the basis of the C
affidavits filed while we are satisfied that the different measures taken by
the Central Government in totally prohibiting in some cases and in per-
mitting restricted use in some other cases are adequate steps from the
health hazards point of view and no further direction is nec;essary to be
issued in respect of the 40 items of insecticides and chemicals identified in
the Petition filed, but we would direct that a Committee of Four Senior D
officers from the Four different Ministries involved should be constituted
which Committee should have deliberations atleast once in three months
and take suitable measures in future in respect of any other insecticides
and chemicals which is found to be hazardous for health. Such a Commit-
., tee should be constituted by the Cabinet Secretary within two months from E ·
the date of the order and the said Committee may .take the assistance of
such technical experts as they think appropriate.

We would accordingly dispose of this Writ Petition with the aforesaid
observation. F

In the two Transferred Cases, the Notification dated 1.1.1996 of the
Central Government issued in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of
Section 27 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 phasing out progressively the
manufacture and use of Benzene Hexachloride and directing that the G
Certificate of Registration in respect of Benzene Hexachloride. issued to
various firms shall be deemed to have been cancelled w.e.f. 1st of April,
1997, has been challenged by the manufacturers inter alia on the ground
that it is beyond the scope and powers of the Central Government under
Section 27(2) of the Insecticides Act to issue such Notification. H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A It is contended by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner - M/s. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. as well as
Mr. Jayant Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the
other Transferred Case that consultation with Registration Committee
heing mandatory for exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 27
B of the Act and there being no such consultation with the Registration
Committee the issuance of the impugned Notification in purported exercise
of power under Section 27(2) of the Act is vitiated and as such is liable to
be struck down. It is further contended that neither there has been any
investigation of its own by the Central Government nor the Central
C Government has received any report from the State Government on the
basis of which the Central Government could have been satisfied about the
insecticides in question is likely to cause any risk which would enable the
Central Government to cancel the Certificate of Registration and there-
fore, the impugned Notification is invalid in law since the satisfaction is
based upon non-existent material and as such the Notification in question
D is liable to be struck down. Lastly, it is contended that in exercise of power
under sub-section (2) of Section 27 the Certificate of Registration of any
insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 3 or any
specific batch thereof can be cancelled if the Central Government is of the
opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing that the use of the said
E insecticide is likely to involve such risk to human beings or animals so as
to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action. Section
3(e)(iii) l.cals with a preparation containing any one or more of the
substances specified in the Schedule. The said power, therefore, cannot be
exercised in respect of any substance specified in the schedule which is an
.F insecticide within the meaning of Section 3(e)(i). Benzene Hexachloride
being one of the substances in the Schedule issued under Section 3(e)(i)
and not a preparation containing any one or more of the substances as
provided in Section 3(e)(iii), the Central Government had no jurisdiction
to issue the impugned Notification in purported exercise of power under
G Section 27(2) of the Insecticides Act. In other words, what is contended
by the counsel for the petitioners these Transferred cases is : the power
to prohibit or cancel the registration under Section 27(2) is in respect of
those preparations containing any one or more of such substances which
are specified in the Schedule and which is consumer oriented and the said
H power cannot be exercised in respect of any substance included in the
ASHOK v. U.O.I. [ PATIANAIK, J.] 31

Schedule by the Parliament itself. Mr. Bhat, learned Addi. Solicitor A
General, on the other hand contended that in construing the provisions of
the Insecticides Act the Court must adopt a construction which would
effectuate the objects of the statute instead of adopting a construction
which would defeat its objects. According to the. learned Addi. Solicitor
General a statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof B
by the Court should be to secure that· object, unless crucial omission or
clear direction makes that end unattainable, as was observed by Lord
Dunedin in Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, (1925) 10 Tax
Cas. 88, 110 and was also accepted by Craies on Statute Law as well as by
Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edn., and bearing in C
mind the aforesaid principle the provisions of Section 27 of the Insecticides
Act are to be construed. According. to the learned Addi. Solicitor General
the courts should lean against any construction which tends to reduce a
Statute to fultility and the provisions of a Statute must be so construed as
to make it effective and operative, on the principle "ut res majis valeat quam D
periat". The learned counsel urged that it is the Court's duty to make what
it can of the Statute, knowing that the Statutes are meant to be operative
and not inept ~nd that nothing short of impossibility should allow a Court
to declare a Statute unworkable. The learned Addi. Solicitor General
• contends that the Insecticides Act having been enacted to regulate the
import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides E
with a view to prevent any risk to human beings or animals and the Central
. Government having been satisfied that the use of Benzene Haxachloride
involves great risk to the human life, and on the being so satisfied having
issued the impugned Notification phasing out the manufacture of such
insecticide and completely prohibiting the same w.e.f. 1.4.1997, this Court F
should not set aside the Notification by interpreting the provisions of the
Act which would have the effect of frustrating th~ object of the legislation
itself. According to the learned Addi. Solicitor General no doubt the words
used in sub-section (2) of Section 27 are not very clear but the expression
"as a result of its own investigation" in sub-section of Section 27 does not G
necessarily refer to an insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (e)
of Section 3 as engrafted in sub-section (1) of Section 27 and on the other
hand it is wide enough to include any insecticide under Section 3(e)
including a substance specified in the Schedule and such a construction
alone would subserve the object of Act. The learned Addi. Solicitor H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A General also urged that when the power under sub-section (2) of Section
27 authorises the Central Government to issue an order refusing to register
the insecticide it would obviously mean that the said power could be
exercised even prior to the registration of the insecticide in question,
whereas the power under Section 27(1) can be exercised only after an
B insecticide has been registered and, therefore, Section 27(2) does not
necessarily refer to Section 27 (1) as contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. So far as the question of lack of consultation
with the Registration Committee is concerned, the learned Addi. Solicitor
General contended that the Notification which was issued in December
1994 itself indicates that the Central Government had due consultation with
c the Registration Committee and as such it was not necessary to have
further consultation with the said Committee before issuance of Notifica-
tion on 1st of January, 1996. According to the learned Addi. Solicitor
General when Benzene Hexachloride has already been banned in several
other countries in the world because of its effect on the human life, the
D Central Government has totally banned its production w.e.f. 31st of March,
1997 having decided to phase out the production progressively and any
interference with the said order will be against the society at large.

Before examining rival contentions with regard to the power of the •
E Central Government under the Insecticides Act to cancel Certificate of
Registration it would be appropriate for us to find out as what is Benzene
Hexachloride and what are its effect on the human beings and the environ-
ment and to what extent it has actually been banned in other countries.

F Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) is formed by the reaction of chlorine
with benzene in the presence of light. It is also called 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 -
HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, namely, any one of several Isomeric
compounds; one of these isomers is an insecticide called Gainmexane. It
was first prepared in 1825 and the insecticidal properties were identified ~
in 1944 with the y-isomer, which is about 1,000 times. more toxic than any
G of the other isomers formed in the rea.ctiov-. The chemical addition of
chlorine of benzene produces a mixture containing at least six of the eight 'c:::::
possible isomers of BHC. BHC has a faster but less protracted action upon
insects. Its use had declined by the 1960s because of competition from
other insecticides and its effects on fishes. (See - The New Encyclopaedia
H Britannica - Volume 2, Page - 115).
ASHOK v. U.O.I. [ PATIANAIK,J.J 33

Benzene Hexachloride, otherwise known as BHC is an insecticide A
specified in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 1968 and is different from
its formulations which would also be an insecticide within the meaning of
Section 3(e)(iii) of the said Insecticides Act, BHC is not used as such by
farmer or consumer though its different formulations or preparations
containing different concentrations of BH C are used in agricultural pest B
control, crop protection operation as well as in public health for control of
diseases like malaria, dengu and plague. In the Tripathi Committee Report
which was constituted to review the continued use of DDT and BHC in
the country in the light of their hazard to human health and environment
pursuant to the earlier observations of the Banerjee Committee Report in C
1986, it has been stated as follows :

"1. In a large number of countries the use of BHC has been
banned/withdrawn or severely restricted mainly due to bio-ac-
cumulation of residue and its associated environmental hazards.
D
2. BHC is bioeffective against pest complex of rice, sugarcane,
sorghum and pigeonpea. Its dust has also been proved bio-effective
for locust control.

• 3. It still continues to be effective in controlling vectors of malaria. E

4. The residue of BH C in soil of USA persists as long as ten years.
However, in other comparative studies between 1977 and 1988 the
residue has been decreased from 5.64 ppm. to 0.06 ppm. against
studies of Indian soils has shown a half life of only 4 months.
F
5 Residues of BHC in water were found in a range of 1.07 to 81.23
mg/litre, in studies ;:onducted during 1985 to 1987. Ganga water
was reported to be contaminated with BHC residue in the range
of 2.5 to 639 nanogram per litre during 1986 to 1989.

6. Reported quantum of 17.66 to 40.90 ppm of residues in rice is
G
highest and for potatoes the quantities were below tolerance limit.
It is low in rabi corps and nil in sugarcane.

7. Residue of BHC in Indian vegetable found to be higher than
permissible limit as per PFA (8.0 ppm). H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 8. The residue of BHC in vegetable oils and oilseeds ranged
between 0.2. to 6.2 ppm, which showed a declining trend.

9. Milk and milk products are contaminated with residues of BHC.
c
10. Meat, chicken, fish and egg are also contaminated with BHC
B residue.

11. There are reports of accumulation of BHC residues in human
adipose tissue and blood.

12. Animal feed as well as animal products do contain BHC
c residues and there is ail increasing trend.

13. Sub-chronic and long term toxicity studies show storage of BHC
in body tissues and steroidiogenic inhibition.

14. Studies on reproduction indicates its effect on reproduction
D leading to impaired reproductive function.

15. In some studies BHC is found to be mutagenic.

16. BHC has been shown to be carcinogenic to mice and rats in 0
one study and in mice in another two studies. But it has been shown
E
not to be carcinogenic to rats and hamstars in one study. BHC has
been classified by IARC into Group 2B i.e. probable carcinogenic
to human.

17. BHC has been shown to produce immunological changes.
F
18. In human studies accidental long term dietary exposure of BHC
resulted in epidemic of porphyria, hyper pigmentation and
neurotoxicity.

Thus, though it is of great use in control of malaria but its adverse
G effect on human health is no less particularly when it has already shown to
be carcinogenic to mice and rats and even scientists are of the opinion that
it is probable carcinogenic to human beings. The Certificate of Registration
granted in favour of petitioners which are available on record indicates that
was for formulation namely BHC10% DP, BHC 50% WP as well as BHC
H technical. Coming to the question of power of the Central Government
ASHOK v. U.O.I.[PAITANAIK,J.] 35
under the Insecticides Act and rival contention of the parties in this Court A
as noticed ea1·1ier, it would be appropriate for us to notice some of the
provisions of the Act.

Section 3(e) defines 'insecticide' to mean that :

3(e) : "insecticide" means : B

(i) any substance specified in the Schedule; or

(ii) such other substances (including fungicides and weedicides) as
the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, C
by notification in the Official Gazette, include in the Schedule from
time to time; or

- ...:.
·
(iii) any preparation containing any one or more of such substan-
ces;
D
Section 4 contemplates constitution of a Board called Central Insec·
ticides Board whose duty is to advise the Central Government and the State
Government on technical matters arising out of the administration of the
Act as well as to carry out the other functions assigned to the Board under
the Act. Section 5 stipulates constitution of a Registration Committee
0
which Committee is empowered to regulate its own procedure for conduct E
of business to be transacted by it. Section 9 provides for registration of
insecticides. Under sub-section (1) of Section 9 a person desirous of
... importing or manufacturing any insecticide is required to make an applica-
tion to the Registration Committee for the registration of such insecticide.
Under sub-section (~) of Section 9 the Registration Committee is required F
to hold such enquiry as it deems fit and on being satisfied about the efficacy
and safety of the insecticide to human beings and animals register the same.
Second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 9 confers power on the
Committee to refuse to register the insecticide. Section 10 provides for an
appeal against the decision of the Registration Committee to the Central G
Government against non-registration. Section 11 is the suo moto power of
, the Central Government in exercise of which power the Government can
call for the record of the Registration Committee in respect of any case
for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the
decision. Section 13 is the power to grant licence and any person desirous
of manufacturing or selling or exhibiting for sale or distributing any insec- H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A ticide is bound to have a licence under Section 13. Section 14 is the power
of the licensing officer to revoke, suspend or amend the licence issued
under Section 13. Section 17 is the prohibition for import as well as
manufacture of certain insecticides. Section 26 is the power of the State
Government to require any person or class of persons to report occurence
of poisoning through the use or handling of any insecticide coming within
B his cognizance. Section 27 the interpretation of which comes up for our
consideration in the case in hand contains the power of the Central
Government in purported exercise of which the impugned notifications
have been issued. Since the same provision requires the consideration of
this Court the same is extracted hereinbelow in extenso :
c
"27. Prohibition of sale, etc., of insecticides for reasons of public
safety. - (1) If, on receipt of a report under Section 26 or otherwise,
the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion, :::·--
for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the use of any insecticide
specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 3 or any specific
D batch thereof is likely to involve such risk to human beings or
animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate
action then that Government may, by notification in the Official ,,
Gazette, prohibit the sale, distribution or use of the insecticide or
batch. In such area, to such extent and such period (not exceeding-
0
E sixty days) as may be specified in the notification pending inves-
tigation into the matter :

Provided that where the investigation is not completed within
the said period, the Central Government or the State Government,
F as the case may be, may extend it by such further period or periods
not exceeding thirty days in the aggregate as it may specify in a
like manner.

(2) If, as a result of its own investigation or on receipt of the report
from the State Government, and after consultation with the
G Registration Committee, the Central Government, is satisfied that
the use of the said insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause
any such risk, it may pass such order (including an order refusing
to register the insecticide or cancelling the certificate of registra-
tion, if any, granted in respect thereof), as it deems fit, depending
H on the circumstances of the case."
ASHOK v. U.O.I.[PAITANAIK,J.] 37

Section 36 is the rule making power of the Central Government. A
~
An examination of the aforesaid provisions of the Act indicates that
before registering a particular insecticide the Registration Comn1ittee is
- '· duty bound to hold such enquiry as it deems fit for satisfying itself that the
insecticide to which the application relates is safe to human beings and B
animals. Coming now to the core question namely whether under Section
27 of the Act the Central Government can cancel the Certificate of
Registration in respect of an insecticide, it appears to us that under
sub-section (1) of Section 27 when the Central Government or the State
Government is of the opinion that the use of any insecticide specified in
sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 3 or any specific batch thereof is c
likely to involve risk to human beings or animals and it is necessary to take
inimediate action then on recording reasons in writing the sale, distribution
:=... or use of the insecticide or batch can be prohibited in such area, to such
extent not exceeding 60 days as may be specified in the notification pending
investigation into the matter. In other words, in respect of an insecticide D
within the meaning of Section 3(e )(iii) i.e. a preparation or formulation
containing anyone or more of such substances specified in the Schedule,
the appropriate Government can immediately by issue of notification
prohibit the sale, distribution or use of the same pending investigation.
Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27, if the investigation is
• not completed within the period of 60 days then the prohibition in question E
-.., could be extended for such further period not exceeding 30 days in the

. aggregate. Under sub-section (2) if the Central Government on the basis
of its own investigation or on receipt of the report from the State Govern-
ment and after consultation with the Registration Committee is satisfied
that the use of the said insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause any F
such risk then it may pass such order as it deems fit depending upon the
circumstances of the case, either refusing to register the .insecticide or
cancel the Certificate of Registration, if already granted. The use of the

- ..;.
word 'said insecticide' in sub-section (2) obviously refers to the insecticide
in question which was the subject matter of consideration under sub-sec-
tion (1) and in respect of which pending further investigation into the
matter the Central Government has already issued a prohibition for sale,
G

distribution or use of the insecticide in question. Therefore, the power of
cancellation of Certificate of Registration conferred upon the Central
Government under sub-section (2) of Section 27 can be exercised only in
respect of any insecticide specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Section 3 i.e. a preparation or formulation of one or more of the substances
specified in the Schedule but the said power cannot be exercised in the
respect of an insecticide which is specified in the Schedule itself by the
Parliament. We are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the
learned Additional Solicitor General that sub-section (2) of Section 27 is
B not restricted to an insecticide in respect of which the Central Government
has already issued a notification prohibiting the sale, distribution or use
pending investigation into the matter. The Scheme of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2) of Section 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is
also an insecticide within the meaning of Section 3(e)(iii) the Central
Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and pending investiga-
C tion into the matter can immediately prohibit sale, distribution or use and
after further investigation can cancel the Certificate of Registration in
respect thereof under sub-section (2) of Section 27. That being the position
in exercise of su;;h power under sub-section (2) of Section 27 a Certificate
of Registration in respect of an insecticide under sub-section 3(e)(i) cannot
D be cancelled under sub-section (2) of Section 27. This is also in consonance
·-
with the logic that an insecticide which is the formulation of any. one or
more of the substances specified in the schedule and is consumer oriented
power of cancellation of registration .certainly has been conferred upon the
Central Government but in respect of an insecticide which does not come
to a consumer and is a substance specified in the Schedule itself and
E therefore an insecticide under Section 3( e) (i), the power has not been
conferred upon the Central Government since the specified substance in
the Schedule has been specified by the Parliament itself. In view of the
aforesaid conclusion of ours we would hold that those of the Certificates
of Registration granted to the petitioner in respect of any formulations
F namely BHC 10% DP and BHC 50% WP, the order of the Central
Government cancelling Certificate of Registration is well within the juris-
diction and there is no legal infirmity in the same. But in respect of
Benzene Hexachloride which is one of the substances specified in the
schedule and as such is an insecticide within the meaning of Section 3(e)(i)
there is no power with the Central Government under sub-section (2) of
G Section 27 to cancel the Certificate of Registration.

So far as the contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners in the transferred case that consult-
ation with the Registration Committee is a pre-condition for exercise of
H power under sub-section (2) and such consultation being not there, the
ASHOK v. U.O.I.[PATIANAIK,J.] 39

issuance of notifications is bad we are of the considered opinion that A
undoubtedly before the power under sub-section (2) of .Section 27 can be
exercised the Central Government is duty bound to have consultation with
the Registration Committee. But in the case in hand having examined the
counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the different Ministries of the Central
Government that there has been due and substantial consultation with the B
Regi~tration Committee which is apparent in the notification of December
1994 itself, and since then there has been further study into the matter and
committees of experts have been constituted who have gone into the matter
and on the basis of the reports submitted by such expert committee
ultimately the Central Government has taken the final decision. It is not
possible for us to hold that there has been no consultation with .the C
Registration Committee before exercising of power under sub-section. (2}
of Section 27. Contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel
on this score, therefore, must be rejected. Before we part with this case,
and having examined the different provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968
we find that once a substance is specified in the Schedule as contemplated D
under Section 3(e )(i) then there is no power for cancelling the registration
certification issued in respect of the same substance even if on scientific
study it appears that the substance in question is grossly detrimental to the
human health, this is a lacuna in the legislation itself, and therefore, steps
should be taken for appropriate amendment to the legislation. In the net
result, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with the observations made E
earlier and the transferred cases are allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.

S.V.K. Iyer Petition disposed of.
T.C. allowed.