{"id":245182,"date":"1997-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997"},"modified":"2017-12-20T02:58:55","modified_gmt":"2017-12-19T21:28:55","slug":"dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik.<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. ASHOK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t02\/05\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t    TRANSFER CASE (C) NOS.2 & 3 OF 1997
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nPATTANAIK. J.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of a letter by one Dr. Ashok addressed to
\nthe Chief  Justice of  India indicating therein that several
\ninsecticides,  colour\tadditives,  food  additives  are  in
\nwidespread use\tin this\t country  which\t have  already\tbeen
\nbanned in  several advanced  countries as  it has been found
\nthat those insecticides are carcinogenus, this Court treated
\nthe  letter   as  a   Petition\tunder\tArticle\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution and  took up  the matter  as  a public Interest
\nlitigation. Notices  were  issued  to  the  Union  of  India
\nthrough the  Secretary. Ministry  of Environment and Forest,
\nthrough the  Secretary,\t Ministry  of  Agriculture,  through
\nSecretary, Ministry  of Industry  & Chemicals  as well as to
\npesticides Association\tof India  through its Secretary Shri
\nH.S. Bahl  and the  Asbestos Cement  Products  Manufacturers
\nAssociation. The  Annexure to  the said\t letter contained 21
\nchemicals and  additives and  a prayer\twas  made  that\t the
\nrespondents should  be directed to ban forthwith the import,
\nproduction,  distribution,   sale  and\tuse  of\t the  listed
\nchemicals and  articles so  that the  citizens will  not  be
\nexposed\t   to\t the\thazards\t   which    the\t   aforesaid
\ninsecticides\/additives are  capable of\tbeing caused. It was
\nalleged generally  in the  petition that  food. water,\tair,
\ndrug and  cosmetic contaminataion are the general results of
\nthe widespread\tuse of\tthe chemical have been banned in the
\nunited States  of America  and rest  are in  the process  of
\nbeing banned.  Though initially\t the annexure  to the letter
\ncontained only 21 items of insecticides and additives but by
\nway of an application 19 other chemicals were added and thus
\nin  all\t  the  prayer\tof  the\t petitioner  is\t to  prevent
\nmanufacture. production\t and use  of 40\t insecticides and\/or
\nadditives.  Counter-affidavits\t were  filed  on  behalf  of
\nSecretary, pesticides  Association, Madras.  A supplementary
\naffidavit was  also filed  on  behalf  of  the\tMinistry  of
\nEnvironment and\t Forest. A  further affidavit was also filed
\nin August  1989 by  the Deputy\tDirector General  of  Health
\nServices giving\t the available\tinformation  on\t the  listed
\nchemicals   as to the carsinogenicity status on the basis of
\nresearch carried  out by  the  Indian  Council\tof  Chemical
\nResearch. It  was indicated  in the  said affidavit that the
\nbenefits accrued  as a\tresult of use of chemicals should be
\nweighed against anticipated risk and whole issue be examined
\nin totality before arriving at a conclusion. When the matter
\nwas heard  on 24th  September, 1996 this Court observed that
\nthere has  been\t a  time  lag  between\tthe  filing  of\t the
\naffidavits and the date of hearing of the petition and there
\nis no  material on  record to  indicate as  to\twhether\t any
\nfurther stops  have been taken with regard to the control of
\nuse of\tthese harmful  pesticides and  chemicals and whether
\nany further study has been made in that regard. The Union of
\nIndia  was,  therefore,\t granted  time\tto  file  a  further
\ndetailed affidavit  clarifying the entire position. When the
\ncase was  taken up  for hearing\t on 5th\t November,  1996  it
\ntranspired that no further affidavit has been filed pursuant
\nto the\tearlier\t direction  and\t therefore,  the  Court\t was
\nconstrained to\tpass an\t order\trequiring  the\tofficers  of
\ndifferent Ministries  involved to be present in the Court on
\nthe next  date of  hearing and\trequired affidavit should be
\nfiled. Pursuant\t to the\t aforesaid order  of  the  Court  an
\nadditional affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary to the
\nGovernment  of\t India,\t Ministry  of  Agriculture  on\t18th
\nNovember, 1996\tstating\t therein  the  steps  taken  by\t the
\nGovernment of  India in\t prohibiting manufacture, import and
\nuse of certain chemicals and in permitting restricted use of
\ncertain other  chemicals and  insecticides. To the aforesaid
\naffidavit a Notification dated 26th May, 1989 was annexed as
\nAnnexure 1  which Notification indicates that the Government
\nof India  had set  up an  Expert Committee  with a  view  to
\nreview continuance  use in  India  of  pesticides  that\t are
\neither banned  or restricted  for use in other countries. To
\nthe said  additional affidavit\talso annexed  a Notification
\ndated 15th  May, 1990  of  the Ministry of Agriculture which
\nNotification indicates\tthat the  Central  Government  after
\nconsidering the\t recommendations of the Expert Committee and
\nafter consultation  with the  Registration Committee  set up
\nunder the Insecticides Act 1968 cancelled the certificate of
\nRegistration in\t respect of  Aaldrin, restricted  the use of
\nDieldrin, for  Locust  Control\tin  desert  areas  by  plant
\nProtection Adviser to the Government of India and restricted
\nthe use\t of Ethylene  Dibromide as a Fumigant for Foodgrains
\nthrough Central\t Government,  State  Government,  Government
\nUndertakings,  and   Government\t  Organisation\t like\tFood
\nCorporation of\tIndia and  Others. To  the  said  Additional
\nAffidavit  yet\tanother\t Notification  of  the\tMinistry  of
\nAgriculture  dated  20th  September,  1986  was\t annexed  as
\nAnnexure III  which Notification prohibited the manufacture,
\nimport and use of Heptachlor and Chlordane and cancelled the
\nRegistration  Certificate   issued   by\t  the\tRegistration
\nCommittee to  Various Persons. It also prohibited the use of
\nAlderin in  India and cancelled the Registration Certificate
\nissued under the insecticides Act. It further transpires the
\nGovernment  of\t India,\t Ministry      of   Agriculture\t  by
\nNotification dated  1st January, 1996 cancelling certificate
\nof Registration\t in respect  of\t Benzene  Haxachloride\twith
\neffect from  1st April,\t 1997, being of the opinion that the
\nmanufacture and\t use of Benzene haxachloride shall be phased
\nout progressively  and the production of its technical grade
\nby the\texisting manufacturers\treduced to  the extent of 50
\nper cent  by 31st  March, 1996\tan totally  banned  by\t31st
\nMarch, 1997.   The  Notification  also\tindicated  that\t the
\nCertificate  of\t  Registration\t in   respect\tof   Benzene
\nHaxachloride shall  be deemed  to have\tlapsed in respect of
\nthose registration  in respect of Benzene Haxachloride shall
\nbe deemed to have lapsed in respect of those registrants who
\nare yet\t to obtain  manufacture\t  licences. On behalf of the
\nMinistry of Environment and Forest, the Director Ministry of
\nEnvironment also  filed an  Additional Affidavit  indicating
\nthe steps  taken by  the  Environment  Ministry\t Prohibiting
\nimport of Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Ministry of Health also
\nfiled  an   additional\taffidavit  and\tMinistry  of  Petro-
\nchemicals   also filed an affidavit. When the case was taken
\nup for\thearing on 21st November, 1996 and these  affidavits
\nof different  Ministries were placed it was noticed that the
\naffidavits have\t dealt with 21 chemicals and additives which
\nwere listed  in the original petition. But there has been no
\nresponse in  respect of\t 19 other chemicals and insecticides
\nreferred to  in the  additional list. It was also brought to
\nthe notice  of the Court some Writ petitions have been filed
\nby the\tmanufacturers of  certain chemicals  challenging the
\nNotification of\t the Government\t cancelling the Registration
\nCertificate  issued   under   the   insecticides   Act\t and
\nProhibiting the\t Manufacture with  effect  from\t 1st  April,
\n1997. It  was stated that  a consolidated affidavit be filed
\nby the Union of India in consultation with all the concerned
\nMinistries in  respect of  40 chemicals\t so that it would be
\neasier\tto  deal  with\tthe  problem.  In  response  to\t the
\naforesaid direction  of the   Court dated 27th November,1996
\nthe Under  Secretary to\t the  Government  of  India  in\t the
\nMinistry of  Agriculture has  filed a consolidated affidavit
\ndealing with  40 items\tof chemicals  and the steps taken by
\nthe Government\tof India  in the Concerned Ministries either
\nprohibiting and\/or  allowing restricted\t manufacture, use of
\nchemicals  on\ta  thorough   study  and   on\treceipt\t  of
\nrecommendations\t from\tthe  experts.\tOn  the\t  basis\t  of
\napplications  by   manufactures,  in  respect  of  the\twrit
\nPetitions pending  in Allahabad\t High Court  and Madras High
\nCourt orders  were passed  by this  Court to  get the  cases
\ntransferred and\t those transferred petitions were also heard
\nalongwith main Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
     Chemicals, besides\t food, air  and water,\thave  always
\nbeen part  of man’s environment in some measure. Even before
\nthe earliest  civilizations or\tagriculture,  the  lightning
\nflash caused  oxygen and  nitrogen of  the air\tto  combine,
\nproducing oxides  of nitrogen  and the said nitrogen dioxide
\neventually combined  with water\t and oxygen to form nitrates
\nthat significantly  enriched the  soil. Volcanos contributed
\nsulphur dioxide\t and particulates  to the air just as fossil
\nfuel  burning\tpower  plants\tdo  today.   But  the  total
\ncontribution of\t these sources\twas small  and the earth was
\nthinly\tpopulated.  With  the  rise  of\t civilizations;\t the
\nsources of  population increased  day by day. Water polluted
\nwith lead  from the  pipes used\t in the\t Roman\tdistribution
\nsystem is  postulated to  have contributed to the decline of
\nRome. Miners  and metal\t workers in the Middle Ages suffered
\noccupational diseases  from   dusts and\t fumes generated  in
\ntheir trades.  As early\t as in\t1713 Ramazzini\tin his\tbook
\n“Diseases of  Workers” has  described the effects of many of
\nthese  chemical\t  pollutants  on   workers.  When  coal\t was
\nintroduced as  a fuel  the problem  of pollution became much
\nworse with  combinations of fog and smoke in London becoming
\nmost famous. With the recognition of the deleterious effects
\nof chemicals,  especially  in  the  Workplace,\tthere  began
\nmeasure for  the control  of  the release of these materials
\nand   the   prevention\t of   occupational   diseases.\t The
\nconcentrations of  many of these materials in the atmosphere
\nwere quit  high. The  scientists began\tresearch to find out
\nthe ways and means to reduce the contents of chemical in the
\natmosphere so as to check the health hazards. In 1945 Warren
\nCook of\t Switzerland published\ta list\tof the\tlimits\twith
\nabstracts of  the information  on which they were based. The
\nUnited states  Public Health  Service  established  drinking
\nwater standards\t in 1946,  Henry Smyth in  1956 reviewed the
\nresearches done in the field and proposed the name Threshold
\nLimit Values  for limiting air concentration for the working
\nenvironment.  The   American  conference   of\tGovernmental
\nIndustrial Hygienists  every  year  compiled  a\t list  after
\nannual review  indicating the  deleterious effect of Several
\nChemicals and  pesticides on  the human\t health and the said
\nstudy is  adopted by  the  occupational\t Safety\t and  Health
\nAdministration of  the Department of Labour as a Regulation.
\nUntil 1960 there was no legislation and it is only in 1960’s
\nthe Clean  Air Acts  were passed in the United states. There
\nhas been  constant research  on the  use  of  chemicals\t and
\npesticides and its effect on the human health in most of the
\nadvance\t countries   and  the\tindustries  also   spend   a
\nsubstantial part of the money in establishing a research and
\ndevelopment  organisations.  on\t the  basis  of\t experiments
\nconducted and  datas available\tthe use of several chemicals
\nand pesticides\thave been either totally banned or have been
\npermitted to  be used  in a  regulated manner depending upon
\nthe effect  of such  chemicals or  pesticides on  the  human
\nsystem. In all ages men faced difficulty in protecting their
\ncrops on the field from small animals and disease organisms.
\nAn insect,  a field  mouse, the spore of a fungus. or a tiny
\nroot-eating worm is more difficult to deal with. Since these
\nsmall  organisms   reproduce  rapidly,\ttheir  total  eating
\ncapacity is  very great. Small pests may also be carriers of
\ndisease, Malaria and Yellow fever, spread by mosquitos, have
\nkilled more  people than all wars. Not all insects, rodents,
\nfungi, and  soil microorganisms\t are pests.  Most of them do
\nnot interfere  with people,  and many  are directly helpful.
\nMillions of  small animals  live within a single cubic meter
\nof healthy  soil. Most are necessary to the process of decay
\nand hence  to the  recycling of\t nutrients. Fungi,  too, are
\nessential to  the  process  of\tdecay  in  all\tthe  world’s
\necosystems. pests  have lived  side by\tside with people for
\nthousands of  years. At\t times pest species have bloomed and
\nbrought disease\t and famine.  But most\tof the time, natural
\nbalance has  been maintained, and humans have lived together
\nwith insects  in reasonable harmony. In modern times, people
\nare no\tlonger willing to accept these natural cycles. Human
\npopulation is  now so  large that  tremendous quantities  of
\nfood are  needed. One  way to  increase crop  yields  is  to
\nreduce\tcompetition  from  insects.  Scientists\t studying  a
\ncabbage field  in United  States found 177 different species
\nof insects  of which  only 5 species were significant pests.
\nThe agricultural  system is subject to the normal checks and
\nbalances of a natural ecosystem. If left alone, pest species
\nare usually  dept under\t control by their enemies. According
\nto an  estimate insects\t at 10 per cent of the food crops in
\nthe United  states in  1891   and at  that time\t   very\t few
\npesticides  were  being\t used.\tThe  pest  populations\twere
\ncontrolled by  insect predators, parasites, and disease. But
\nin the\tsurvey of  1970 it was found that the crop losses to
\ninsects rose  to 13 per cent. The question, however, whether
\nit is on account of chemical sprays or whether farmers would
\nbe better  off if  no pesticides  were used  at all    still
\nremains unanswered.  There is  no dispute that most chemical
\npesticides are\tpoisonous to  humans as\t well as to insects.
\nThe organophosphates  which have  been used  extensively  in
\nNorth America  since 1973  are much  more poisonous than the
\nDDT which  was replaced by such organophosphates. Since mid-
\n1940s many thousands of people have fallen sick or have died
\nfrom severe  pesticide poisoning every year. At present more
\nthan half of these are children who are exposed to the toxic
\nchemical through carelessness in packing or storage. Most of
\nthe others  are workers\t who handle  these materials  in the
\nfactory or  on farms.  Even workers  working in\t the factory
\nwhere chemicals\t are manufactured  bring the  pesticide dust
\nhome on their clothes and they poison the family as well. In
\nJuly 1975  the Allied  chemical\t Company  paid\tmillions  in
\ndamage suits  and the  plant was  shut down.  No  amount  of
\ncompensation paid  in cash  could make\tthe  people  healthy
\nagain.\tPeople\t can  avoid   exposure\tto  large  doses  of
\ninsecticides but  it is\t impossible  to\t avoid\texposure  to
\ncontaminants in\t food, in  the air  and in  drinking  water.
\nScientists in  their  anxiety  to  increase  the  production
\ncapacity of  the soil and to prevent the food particles from
\nvarious pests and insects have invented several insecticides
\nwhich has caused deleterious effect on the human health. The
\nbroad spectrum\tpesticides have\t serious flaws.\t They  upset
\necosystem, poison  people  and\tanimal\tand  possibly  cause
\ncancer. on  the basis  of continued  research in  the  field
\nseveral other  advance countries  whereas  in  a  developing
\ncountry, like  India, no  effective measures have been taken
\nso far while examining the affidavits filed in this court by
\ndifferent Ministries  of the Government of India to find out
\nwhat effective\tsteps have  been banned\t in other  countries
\nparticularly when its deleterious effect on the human health
\nis alarming,  One thing\t is absolutely\tclear that  in\tthis
\ncountry there  has not\tbeen much  study and research on the
\nharmful effect\tof several  such chemicals  and\t pesticides.
\nThere  is  no  coordinated  organisation  and  the  lack  of
\ncoordination between  different ministries of the government
\nwho deal  with different  chemicals and\t pesticides make the
\npeople of  this country\t suffer. It may be true that several
\nsuch insecticides  and chemicals  may be required in certain
\ncontingency when epidemics like Plague and dengue break. But
\nthat cannot  be ground\tfor allowing  the industrialists  to
\nmanufacturer such  commodity when it is established that the
\nuse of\tthe commodity  is grossly  detrimental to  the human
\nhealth. Take  for example an insecticide called DDT. It acts
\nas a  nerve poison.  Paralyzing insects. It has been used to
\ncontrol insects\t which destroy\tfood and forage crops and to
\nkill disease carrying insects, such as mosquitoes that carry
\nmalaria and  yellow fever and lice that carry typhus. DDT is
\na residual  poison  that  retains  its\teffectiveness  in  a
\nsprayed area  for weeks, although it may persist in the area
\nfor years.  It is  harmless to most plants. The chemical was
\nfirst prepared by Oothmar Zeidler, a German chemist in 1874.
\nIts effectiveness  was discovered  and recognised by a Swiss
\nscientist Paul\tHermann Muller\twho won\t the Noble  prize in
\n1984. it  was used  heavily in world War II, particularly in
\nthe mid\t and South-pacific  theaters  by  spraying  mosquito
\ninfected areas\tprior to  invasion and occupation. The spray
\nprogram\t continued   after  the\t  war  and   was   primarily
\nresponsible for\t eliminating malaria  and  yellow  fever  as
\nmajor diseases.\t The said  chemical, however,  is  toxic  to
\npeople and  animals. it accumulates in the bodies of animals
\nthat  eat   food  contaminated\t with  the  substance.\tWhen
\ndissolved in  organic solvents.\t DDT can be absorbed through
\nthe skin.  The chemical\t nature of  DDT is  not\t changed  by
\nprocess of  metabolism, soil microorganisms or sun-light. It
\nis dangerous  to birds,\t to fish  and other forms of aquatic
\nlife, Because  of its  potential danger\t to human health and
\nits possible  effect on\t several species  its use  has\tbeen
\ntotally banned\tin the\tUnited\tStates\tof  America  by\t the
\nEnvironmental Protection  Agency since 1972. Soon thereafter
\nthe said  insecticide has  been\t  banned  in  several  other
\ncountries including  Canada, Sweden  and Denmark, But so far
\nas India  is concerned. It is now being produced only by M\/s
\nHindustan insecticides\tLimited and  the Director General of
\nHealth services\t on getting  information about\tthe quantity
\nrequired  by  respective  States  for  their  Public  health
\nProgramme puts\tit before the requirement Committee and only
\non the approval of the said Committee it is manufactured and
\nsent to\t different States. Thus though it has not been fully
\nbanned but  its manufacture  and use has been controlled. We
\nhave taken  the illustration  with respect  to\tone  of\t the
\ninsecticides only for the purpose of indicating that several
\ninsecticides  which   have  been   banned  in  the  advanced
\ncountries like\tAmerica are still being permitted to be used
\nin this country possibly because of certain necessity.\n<\/p>\n
     Agriculture was  the principal activity of Indians till
\nNineteenth Century and more than seventy per cent population
\nwere dependent\ton agriculture\tfor their livelihood. In the
\ntwentieth Century the Country saw industrial revolution. The
\nrural population  started migrating  from villages  to urban
\nand industrial towns. but yet agriculture holds the dominant
\nposition in Indian economy. The growing realisation of acute
\nproblem of  population explosion  in India  necessitated the
\npolicy makers, planners to make vigorous efforts to optimise
\nagricultural production.  The idea  of green  revolution was
\nfloated and  effective steps  were taken  to  machanise\t the
\nagricultural  process\tand  to\t  modernise  it\t  by   using
\nfertilizers and spray in pesticides in order to achieve self
\nsufficiency in\tfood  grains,  commercial  crops  and  other
\nagricultural products.\tIt was realised that endeavor should
\nbe made\t on war\t footing to boost agricultural production so
\nas to  fulfil  the  requirement\t of  food  for\tour  teeming
\nmillions.  One\tof  the\t hurdles  in  boosting\tagricultural
\nproduction was\texcessive loss\tand destruction of crops and
\nfoodgrains by insects and pests. A need was, therefore, felt
\nto import  and manufacture  insecticides and  pesticides  to
\nprotect crops  and plants  from\t the  damage  of  pests\t and
\ninsects. But  the most\tdangerous crisis  in the present day
\nmodern world  is that  of global  atmospheric pollution. The
\neco system  has become imbalanced by uncontrolled use. abuse
\nand misuse  of natural\tresources and manufacture and use of
\nhazardous products  and chemicals  resulting in\t endangering
\nthe very  existence of\thuman race.  The  excessive  use  of
\nchemicals  and\t pesticides  for   optimising\tagricultural
\nproduction created  alarming danger  to health and safety of
\nliving\tbeings\t in  general   and  agriculture\t workers  in
\nparticular.  The   impact  of\tpesticides  use\t  on  global
\nenvironment may\t vary in magnitude and exhibits a variety of
\nbehavioural patterns  and modes of action. Pesticides affect
\nman’s ecosystem\t and their  residues can  get into  the food
\nchain. The amount of pesticide consumed by people depends on
\nthe manner  of usage  of  pesticides  particularly  on\tfarm
\ncrops, storage of the produce and its processing. In most of
\nthe developed  countries  the  use  of\thard  pesticides  on
\nagricultural crops  has been either banned or restricted and
\nother pest  control  programmes\t are  adopted  in  order  to
\nmaintain eco-system.  But the developing countries are still
\nusing these  pesticides without\t caring for side effects  on
\nenvironment. In\t recent times the Central Government has set
\nup the\tpesticides Environment\tpollution Advisory committee
\nin the\tMinistry of  Agriculture to review from time to time
\nthe environmental  repercussion\t and  to  suggest  measures.
\nWhenever necessary.  It is a fact that pesticides considered
\nhazardous in rich countries of the developing countries lack
\nscientific facilities for toxicological scrutiny as also for
\nmaking proper  cost assessment.\t It is\ttrue that  different
\ncountries  may\t have  different   requirements\t but  it  is
\ndifficult and  dangerous to assume that pesticides banned or
\nrestricted in  USA  or\tother  European\t countries  will  be
\nacceptable in the Third World countries. In India pesticides
\nare use\t over the  past four decades for crop protection and
\ncontrol of diseases like malaria. There has been much debate
\nover the use of pesticides at the cost to weigh the benefits
\nof use of pesticides and the adverse effect that is produced
\non human health on account of such use of pesticides.\n<\/p>\n
     Right to  Life enshrined  in Article  21 means right to
\nhave something\tmore than survival and not mere existence or
\nanimal existence.  It includes\tall those  aspects  of\tlife
\nwhich go  to make  a man’s  life meaningful  , complete\t and
\nworth living.  As has  been stated  by this  court in Maneka
\nGandhi’s case  (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, in the case
\nof Board  of Trustees vs. Dilip (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases
\n124 and\t in the\t case of  Ramasharan vs. Union of India 1989
\nSupp. (1) Supreme court Cases 251, that it would include all
\nthat gives  meaning  to\t a  man’s  life,  for  example,\t his
\ntradition, culture, heritage and protection of that heritage
\nin its\tfull measure.  In still\t recent cases this Court has
\ngiven liberal  interpretation to  the word ‘life’ in Article\n<\/p>\n
21. And\t in the\t case M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & others<\/a>
\n(1987) 4 supreme Court Cases 463 while dealing with a public
\nInterest petition  relating to\tGanga Water  Pollution\tthis
\nCourt has observed that life, public health and ecology have
\npriority over  problems of unemployment and loss of revenue.
\nIn the\tUnited Nations\tConference on  the Human Environment
\nheld at\t Stockholm in 1972 it was stated that the protection
\nand improvement\t of human environment is a major issue which
\naffects the  well-being of  people and\teconomic development
\nthrough out  the world\tand it\tis the\turgent desire of the
\npeople of  whole world\tand the\t duty of all Governments. It
\nwas also stated:-\n<\/p>\n
     ”\tA  point  has  been  reached  in
\n     history  when  we\tmust  shape  our
\n     actions throughout the world with a
\n     more   prudent   care   for   their
\n     environmental consequences. Through
\n     ignorance or  indifference\t  we can
\n     do massive and irreversible harm to
\n     the earthly  environment  on  which
\n     our life  and  well  being\t depend.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Conversely,     through\t  fuller
\n     knowledge and  wiser action, we can
\n     achieve  for   ourselves  and   our
\n     posterity\ta   better  life  in  an
\n     environment more  in  keeping  with
\n     human needs  and hopes.  There  are
\n     broad vistas for the enhancement of
\n     environmental   quality   and   the
\n     creation of  a good  life. What  is
\n     needed is\tan enthusiastic but calm
\n     state  of\t mind  and  intense  but
\n     orderly work.  for the  purpose  of
\n     attaining freedom\tin the\tworld of
\n     nature  a\tbetter\tenvironment.  To
\n     defend  and   improve   the   human
\n     environment for  present and future
\n     generations    has\t    become    an
\n     imperative goad  for mankind a goal
\n     to be pursued together with, and in
\n     harmony with,  the established  and
\n     fundamental goals\tof peace  and of
\n     world-wide\t economic   and\t  social
\n     development.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     What  has\t been  stated\tabove  in  relation  to\t the
\nenvironmental hazards  would apply  with much  greater force
\nwhen it\t comes to  health hazards.  By\tgiving\tan  extended
\nmeaning to  expression ‘life’  in Article  21 this court has
\nbrought health\thazards due  to pollution  within it  and so
\nalso the  health hazards  from use  of harmful drugs. In the
\ncase of Vincent\t Panikuriangara vs. Union of India,<\/a> 1987 (2)
\nSCC 165,  on a\tpublic Interest\t Petition seeking directions
\nfrom  this  Court  to  ban  import,  manufacture,  sale\t and
\ndistribution of\t certain drugs\tthis Court  had observed  ‘A
\nhealthy body is the very foundation for all human activities
\nand in\ta welfare state it is the obligation of the state to
\nensure\tthe   creation\tand  the  sustaining  of  conditions
\ncongenial to  good health’ . The Court in the aforesaid case
\nextracted a  passage from  the earlier\tjudgment in  Bandhua
\nMunti Morcha  vs. Union\t of India<\/a>  1984 (3)  SCC 161,  which
\nwould be profitable to extract herein:-\n<\/p>\n
     ” It  is the  fundamental right  of
\n     everyone in  this Country,\t assured
\n     under the\tinterpretation given  to
\n     Arty. 21  by this court in Farancis
\n     Mullin’s case  (1981) 1 SCC 608  to
\n     live with\thuman dignity, free from
\n     exploitation. This\t right\tto  live
\n     with  human  dignity  enshrined  in
\n     Art.21 derives its life breath from
\n     the Directive  principles of  State
\n     Policy and\t Particularly  cls.  (e)
\n     and (f) of Art. 39 and Arts. 41 and
\n     42 and  at the least, therefore, it
\n     must  include   protection\t of  the
\n     health and strength of the workers,
\n     men and  women, and  of the  tender
\n     age  of   children\t against  abuse,
\n     opportunities  an\t facilities  for
\n     children to  develop in  a\t healthy
\n     manner and in conditions of freedom
\n     and      dignity,\t     educational
\n     facilities.   just\t   as\t huamane
\n     conditions\t of  work  an  maternity
\n     relief.  These   are  the\t minimum
\n     requirements which\t must  exist  in
\n     order to  enable a\t person to  live
\n     with human\t dignity. and  no  state
\n     neither the  central Government has
\n     the right\tto take any action which
\n     will  deprive   a\tperson\t of  the
\n     enjoyment\t  of\t these\t   basic
\n     essentials”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was further observed:
\n     ” The  branch with which we are now
\n     dealing, namely,  healthy\tcare  of
\n     citizens, is a problem with various
\n     facets.  It   involves   an   ever-
\n     changing challenge.  There\t appears
\n     to\t be,  as  it  were,  a\tconstant
\n     competition between  nature  (which
\n     can be  said to  be responsible for
\n     new ailments) on one side and human
\n     ingenuity engaged\tin  research and
\n     finding  out   curative  processes.
\n     This  being   the\tsituation,   the
\n     problem has  an evershifting  base.
\n     It\t is  commonplace  that\twhat  is
\n     considered to  be the best medicine
\n     today for treatment of a particular
\n     disease becomes  out  of  date  and
\n     soon goes\tout of\tthe market  with
\n     discovery\tor   invention\tof   new
\n     drugs. Again  what is considered to
\n     be incurable  at any given point of
\n     time becomes subjected to treatment
\n     and cure  with new\t finds. There is
\n     yet another situation which must be
\n     taken note\t of as\thuman  knowledge
\n     expands and marches ahead. With the
\n     onward   march   of   science   and
\n     complexities of  the living process
\n     hitherto\tunknown\t  diseases   are
\n     noticed. To  meet\tnew  challenges,
\n     new drugs have to be found. In this
\n     field, therefore, change appears to
\n     be the rule.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  necessary to examine the present problem arising
\nout of\tuse of\tpesticides  and\t other\tchemicals  which  on
\naccount of  its adverse\t effects on human health has already
\nbeen banned  in other  advanced countries.  On examining the
\ncounter-affidavits  filed   on\t  behalf  of  the  different
\nMinistries of  the Government  it appears  to us that though
\nsufficient steps  have been  taken to either ban or to allow
\nrestrictive use\t of these  insecticides but  yet there is no
\nco-ordinated  effort   and  different\tMinistries  of\t the
\nGovernment of India are involved. It also further transpires
\nthat there has been no continuous effort to have research or
\nto have minimum information about the adverse effects of the
\nuse of\tsuch pesticides\t and other  chemicals as a result of
\nwhich people  at large\tof this\t country suffer\t to a  great
\nextent. As  it is  on account  of lack\tof capacity  of\t the
\npeople of  the country\tto afford  good and nutritious food.
\nthe average  standard of  human\t health\t is  much  below  as
\ncompared to other advanced countries. In addition to that it
\ninsecticides and  chemicals are\t permitted to be freely used
\nin  protecting\t the  foodgrains   and\tin   increasing\t the
\nagricultural production then that  will bring insarmountable
\nhazards to  all those  country-men   who consume  those food
\narticles. To  check these maladies what is essential for the
\nGovernment of  India is to have a co-ordinated and sustained
\neffort. In  this age of computerisation and inter-linking of
\nthe countries  through internet it does not take more than a
\ncouple of  minutes to  gather the  necessary information  in
\nrespect o  f any particular insecticide or pesticide and how
\nsuch commodities  have been  dealt with\t in  other  advanced
\ncountries. What is really essential is a genuine will on the
\npart of\t the Administrative machinery and a conjoined effort
\nof all\tthe  ministries\t concerned.  on\t the  basis  of\t the
\naffidavits filed  while we  are satisfied that the different
\nmeasures  taken\t  by  the   Central  Government\t in  totally
\nprohibiting in\tsome other  cases are adequate step from the
\nhealth hazards\tpoint of  view and  no further\tdirection is
\nnecessary to  be issued\t in  respect  of  the  40  items  of
\ninsecticides and chemicals identified in the petition filed.
\nbut we would direct that a Committee of Four senior officers
\nfrom  the  four\t different  Ministries\tinvolved  should  be
\nconstituted  which   committee\tshould\t have  deliberations
\natleast once  in three\tmonths and take suitable measures in
\nfuture in  respect of  any other  insecticides and chemicals
\nwhich is  found to be hazardous for health. Such a Committee
\nshould be  constituted by  the Cabinet\tSecretary within two
\nmonths from the date of the order and the said Committee may
\ntake the  assistance of such technical experts as they think
\nappropriate.\n<\/p>\n
     We would accordingly dispose of this Writ petition with
\nthe aforesaid observation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  two Transferred  Cases. the  notification\tdate
\n1.1.1996 of  the Central  Government issued  in exercise  of
\npowers\tunder\tsub-section  (2)   of  section\t 27  of\t the
\nInsecticides  Act,   1968  phasing   out  progressively\t the
\nmanufacture and\t use of\t Benzene Hexachloride  and directing
\nthat the  certificate of  Registration in respect of Benzene
\nHexachloride issued to various firms shall be deemed to have
\nbeen cancelled w.e.f 1st of April, 1997, has been challenged
\nby the\tmanufacturers inter  alia on  the ground  that it is
\nbeyond the  scope and powers of the Central Government under
\nSection\t 27(2)\t of  the  Insecticides\tAct  to\t issue\tsuch
\nNotification.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  contended by  Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan,\t the learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t petitioner -M\/S.  Kanoria Chemicals
\nand Industries\tLtd. as\t well as  MR.  Jayant  Das,  learned
\nsenior counsel\tappearing for  the petitioner  in the  other
\nTransferred  Case   that  consultation\t with\tRegistration
\nCommittee being\t mandatory for\texercise of power under Sub-
\nSection\t (2) of\t Section 27(2) of the Act and there being no
\nsuch  consultation   with  the\tRegistration  Committee\t the
\nissuance of  the impugned Notification in purported exercise
\nof power  under section 27 (2) of the Act is vitiated and as
\nsuch is\t liable to  be stuck  down. It\tis further contended
\nthat neither  there has been any investigation of its own by
\nthe Central Government nor the Central Government could have
\nbeen satisfied\tabout the insecticides in question is likely
\nto cause  any risk which would enable the Central Government
\ncould have been satisfied about the insecticides in question
\nis likely  to cause  any risk which would enable the Central
\nGovernment to  cancel the  certificate of  Registration\t and
\ntherefore. the inpugned Notification is invalid In law since
\nthe satisfaction  is based upon non-existent material and as
\nsuch the  notification in  question is\tliable to  be struck
\ndown .\tLastly, it  is contended  that in  exercise of power
\nunder sub-section  (2) of  section  27\tthe  certificate  of
\nRegistration of\t any   insecticide specified  in  sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii) of  clause (e)  of section  3 or\tany  specific  batch
\nthereof can be cancelled it the Central Government is of the
\nopinion for  reasons to\t be recorded in writing that the use
\nof the\tsaid insecticide  is likely  to involve such risk to
\nhuman beings  or animals  so as\t to render  it expedient  or
\nnecessary to  take immediate  action. Section  3  (e)  (iii)
\ndeals with  a preparation  containing any one or more of the
\nsubstances specified  in  the  Schedule.,  The\tsaid  power,
\ntherefore, cannot  be exercised\t in respect to any substance
\nspecified in the schedule which in an insecticide within the
\nmeaning of section 3(e) (i). Benzene Hexachlordide being one
\nof the\tsubstances in  the  Schedule  issued  under  Section
\n3(e)(iii), and\tnot a preparation containing any one or more
\nof the\tsubstances as  provided in  section  3(e)(iii),\t the
\nCentral Government had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned
\nNotification in\t purported exercise  of power  under section
\n27(2) of   the\tInsecticides Act.  In other  words, what  is
\ncontended  by\tthe  counsel   for  the\t  petitioners  these
\nTransferred cases  is the  power to  prohibit or  cancel the
\nregistration under  section 27(2)  is in  respect  of  those
\npreparations containing\t any one  or more of such substances
\nwhich are  specified in\t the Schedule  and which is consumer
\noriented ant  the said\tpower cannot be exercised in respect
\nof any\tsubstance included in the Schedule by the parliament
\nitself. Mr.  Bhat. learned  Addl. Solicitor  General, on the
\nother hand  contended that  in construing  the provisions of
\nthe insecticides  Act the  Court must  adopt a\tconstruction
\nwhich would effectuate the objects of the statute instead of
\nadopting a  construction which\twould  defeat  its  objects.
\nAccording to  t he learned Addl. Solicitor General a statute
\nis designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by
\na court\t should be  to secure  that object,  unless  crucial
\nomission or  clear direction makes that end unattainable, as
\nwas observed  by Lord Dunedin in whitney v. Commissioners of
\ninland Revenue\t(1925) 10  Tax\tCas.  88.110  and  was\talso
\naccepted by  Craies on Statute Law  as well as by Maxwell on
\nThe Interpretation  of Statutes,  Tenth Edn., and bearing in
\nmind the aforesaid principle the provisions of Section 27 of
\nthe Insecticides Act are to be construed,
\n     According to  the learned\tAddl. Solicitor\t General the
\ncourts should  lean against  any construction which tends to
\nreduce a statute to futility and the provisions of a statute
\nmust be\t so construed as to make it effective and operative,
\non the\tprinciple “ut  res majis  valeat quam  periat”.\t The
\nlearned counsel\t urged that  it is  the court’s duty to make
\nwhat it\t can of\t the Statute,  knowing that the Statutes are
\nmeant to  be operative\tand not inept and that nothing short
\nof impossibility  should allow\ta Court to declare a Statute
\nunworkable. The\t learned Addl.\tSolicitor  General  contends
\nthat the  Insecticides Act  having been\t enacted to retulate
\nthe import,  manufacture, sale,\t transport, distribution and
\nuse of insecticides with a view to prevent any risk to human
\nbeings or  animals and\tthe Central  Government having\tbeen
\nsatisfied that\tthe use\t of  Benzene  Hexachloride  involves
\ngreat risk  to the  human life.\t and on\t being so  satisfied
\nhaving issued  the impugned  Notification  phasing  out\t the
\nmanufacture of\tsuch insecticide  an completely\t prohibiting
\nthe same  w.e.f. 1.4.1997,  this court\tshould not set aside
\nthe Notification  by interpreting  the provisions of the Act
\nwhich would have the effect of frustrating the object of the
\nlegislation itself.  According to the learned Addl Solicitor
\nGeneral no  doubt the  words  used  in\tsub-section  (2)  of
\nsection 27  are not  very clear\t but the  expression ”\tas a
\nresult of  its own  investigation”  in\tsub-section  (2)  of
\nSection 27  does not  necessarily refer\t to  an\t insecticide
\nspecified in  sub-clause (iii) of Clause (e) of Section 3 as
\nengrafted in  sub-section (1) of Section 27 and on the other
\nhand it\t is wide  enough to  include any  insecticide  under
\nSection 3(e) including a substance specified in the Schedule
\nand such  a construction  alone would subserve the object of
\nthe Act. The learned Addl. Solicitor General also urged that
\nwhen  the   power  under   sub-section\t(2)  of\t Section  27
\nauthorises the Central Government to issue an order refusing
\nto register the insecticide it would obviously mean that the
\nsaid power could be exercised even prior to the registration
\nof the\tinsecticide in\tquestion, whereas  the\tpower  under
\nSection 27(1)  can be exercised only after an insecticide in
\nquestion, whereas  the power  under  Section  27(1)  can  be
\nexercised only after an insecticide has been registered and,
\ntherefore. Section  27(2)  does\t not  necessarily  refer  to
\nsection 27(1)  as contended by the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the\t petitioner. So\t far as\t the  question\tof  lack  of
\nconsultation with  the Registration  Committee is concerned,
\nthe learned  Addl.  Solicitor  General\tcontended  that\t the
\nNotification  which  was  issued  in  December\t1994  itself
\nindicates that\tthe Central  Government had due consultation
\nwith the  Registration Committee  and as  such\tit  was\t not
\nnecessary  to\thave  further  consultation  with  the\tsaid
\nCommittee before issuance of Notification on 1st of January,
\n1996. According\t to the learned Addl. Solicitor General when
\nBenzene Hexachloride  has already  been\t banned\t in  several
\nother countries\t in the\t world because\tof its effect on the
\nhuman life,  the Central  Government has  totally banned its
\nproduction w.e.f.  31st of  March, 1997,  having decided  to
\nphase out the production progressively and any intereference
\nwith the said order will be against the society at large.\n<\/p>\n
     Before examining  rival contentions  with regard to the
\npower of  the Central  Government under the insecticides Act
\nto  cancel   Certificate  of   Registration  it\t  would\t  be
\nappropriate for\t us to\tfind  out  as  to  what\t is  Benzene
\nHexachloride and what are its effect on the human beings and
\nthe environment\t and to\t what extent  it has  actually\tbeen
\nbanned in other countries.\n<\/p>\n
     Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) is formed by the reaction of
\nchlorine with  benzene in  the presence of light. It is also
\ncalled 1,  2, 3, 4, 5, 6- HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, namely, any
\none of\tseveral isometic  compounds: one of these isomers is
\nan insecticide\tcalled Gammexane.  It was  first prepared in
\n1825 and the insecticidal properties were identified in 1944
\nwith the  y-isomer, which  is about  1,000 times more toxics
\nthan any  of the  other isomers\t formed in the reaction. The
\nchemical addition  of chlorine to benzene produces a mixture
\ncontaining at  least six  of the  eight possible  isomers of
\nBHC. BHC  has a\t faster\t but  less  protracted\taction\tupon
\ninsects. It  use  had  declined\t by  the  1960s\t because  of
\ncompetition from  other\t insecticides  and  its\t effects  on
\nfishes. (See  – The New Encyclopaedia Britannica – Volume 2,
\nPage – 115).\n<\/p>\n
     Benzene Hexachloride,  otherwise known  as\t BHC  is  an
\ninsecticide specified  in the  Schedule to  the\t insecticide
\nAct, 1968 and is different from its formulations which would
\nalso  be  an  insecticide  within  the\tmeaning\t of  Section
\n3(e)(iii) of  the said\tInsecticides Act. BHC is not used as
\nsuch by farmer or consumer though its different formulations
\nor preparations\t containing different  concentrations of BHC
\nare  use  in  agricultural  pest  control,  crop  protection
\noperation as  well  as\tin  public  health  for\t control  of
\ndiseases like  malaria, dengu  and plague.  In the  Tripathi
\nCommittee  Report   which  was\tconstituted  to\t review\t the
\ncontinued use  of DDT and BHC in the country in the light of
\ntheir hazard to human health and environment pursuant to the
\nearlier observations  of the  Banerjee Committee  Report  in
\n1986, it has been stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     1. In  a large  number of countries
\n     the   use\t  of   BHC    has   been
\n     banned\/withdrawn\t or\tseverely
\n     restricted\t   mainly     due     to
\n     bioaccumulation of\t residue and its
\n     associated environmental hazards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. BHC is bioeffective against pest
\n     complex of rice, sugarcane, sorghum
\n     and pigeonpea.  Its dust  has  also
\n     been proved bioeffective for locust
\n     control.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t It   still  continues\t to   be
\n     effective in controlling vectors of
\n     malaria.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. The  residue of\t BHC in\t soil of
\n     USA persists  as long as ten years.
\n     However,\tin   other   comparative
\n     studies between  1977 and\t1988 the
\n     residue  has  been\t decreased  from
\n     5.64  ppm\t to  0.06   ppm\t against
\n     studies of Indian soils has shown a
\n     half life of only 4 months.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Residues  of BHC  in water  were
\n     found in  a range\tof 1.07 to 81.23
\n     mg\/litre,\tin   studies   conducted
\n     during 1985  to 1987.  Ganga  water
\n     was  reported  to\tbe  contaminated
\n     with BHC  residue in  the range  of
\n     2.5  to   639  nanogram  per  litre
\n     during 1986 to 1989k.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. Reported  quantum  of  17.66  to
\n     40.90 ppm\tof residues  in rice  is
\n     highest  and   for\t  potatoes   the
\n     quantities\t were\tbelow  tolerance
\n     limit. It\tis low in rabi crops and
\n     nil in sugarcane.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t Residue   of  BHC   in\t  Indian
\n     Vegetable found  to be  higher than
\n     permissible limit\tas per PFA (8.0)
\n     PPM)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8. The  residue of BHC in vegetable
\n     oils and  oilseeds\t ranged\t between
\n     0.2 to  6.2  ppm,\twhich  showed  a
\n     declining trend.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.\t Milk\tand  milk  products  are
\n     contaminated with residues of BHC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. Meat, chicken, fish and egg are
\n     also contaminated with BHC residue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.   There    are\t   reports    of
\n     accumulation  of  BHC  residues  in
\n     human adipose tissue and blood.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. Animal\t feed as  well as animal
\n     products do  contain  BHC\tresidues
\n     and there is an increasing trend.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.  Sub-chronic\tand  long   term
\n     toxicity studies  show  storage  of
\n     BHC    in\t  body\t  tissues    and
\n     steroidiogenic inhibition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.   Studies    on    reproduction
\n     indicates\t   its\t   effect     on
\n     reproduction  leading  to\timpaired
\n     reproductive function.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15. In some studies BHC is found to
\n     be mutagenic.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16.  BHC\thas  been  shown  to  be
\n     carcinogenic to  mice and\trats  in
\n     one study\tand in\tmice in\t another
\n     two studies.  But it has been shown
\n     not to  be carcinogenic to rats and
\n     hamstars in one study. BHC has been
\n     classified by  IARC into  Group 2 B
\n     i.e.   probable   carcinogenic   to
\n     human.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17. BHC  has been\tshown to produce
\n     immunological changes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.  In  human  studies  accidental
\n     long term\tdietary exposure  of BHC
\n     resulted in  epidemic of porphyria,
\n     hyper\t pigmentation\t     and
\n     neurotoxicity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, though  it is  of great use in control of malaria
\nbut  its   adverse  effect   on\t human\thealth\tis  no\tless
\nparticularly when it has already shown to be caioinogenic to
\nmice and rats and even scientists are of the opinion that it
\nis probable carcinogenic to human beings. The Certificate of
\nRegistration granted  in favour\t of  petitioners  which\t are
\navailable on  record indicates\tthat is\t was for formulation
\nnamely BHC  10% DP,  BHC 50%  WP as  well as  BHC technical.
\nComing to  the question\t of power  of the Central Government
\nunder the  Insecticides Act  and  rival\t contention  of\t the
\nparties in  this Court\tas  noticed  earlier,  it  would  be
\nappropriate for\t us to\tnotice some of the provisions of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 3(e) defines ‘insecticide’ to mean that:
\n     3(e): ” insecticide” means :-<\/p>\n
     (i) any  substance specified in the
\n     schedule : or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)    such    other    substances
\n     (including\t     fungicides\t     and
\n     weedicides)    as\t  the\t Central
\n     Government may,  after consultation
\n     with the  Board. by notification in
\n     the official  Gazette.  include  in
\n     the Schedule from time to time; or\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  any\t preparation  containing
\n     any one or more of such substances;\n<\/p>\n
     Section 4 contemplates constitution
\n     of\t  a    Board   called\t Central
\n     Insecticides Board whose duty is to
\n     advise the\t Central Government  and
\n     the State\tGovernment on  technical
\n     matters   arising\t  out\tof   the
\n     administration of\tthe Act\t as well
\n     as to carry out the other functions
\n     assigned to  the  Board  under  the
\n     Act,    Section\t 5    stipulates
\n     constitution  of\ta   Registration
\n     Committee\t which\t  Committee   is
\n     empowered\tto   regulate  its   own
\n     procedure for  conduct of\tbusiness
\n     to be  transacted by  it. Section 9
\n     provides\tfor    registration   of
\n     insecticides. Under sub-section (1)
\n     of section\t 9 a  person desirous of
\n     importing\tor   manufacturing   any
\n     insecticide is  required to make an
\n     application  to   the  Registration
\n     Committee for  the Registration  of
\n     such insecticide. Under sub-section
\n     (1)  of section 9 a person desirous
\n     of importing  or manufacturing  any
\n     insecticide is  required to make an
\n     application  to   the  Registration
\n     Committee for  the registration  of
\n     such insecticide. Under sub-section
\n     (3) of  Section 9\tthe Registration
\n     Committee is  required to hold such
\n     enquiry as\t it  deems  fit\t and  on
\n     being satisfied  about the efficacy
\n     and safety\t of the\t insecticide  to
\n     human beings  and animals\tregister
\n     the same.\tSecond proviso\tto  sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section (3)  of section  9\t confers
\n     power on the Committee to refuse to
\n     register the  insecticide.\t Section
\n     10 provides  for an  appeal against
\n     the decision  of  the  Registration
\n     Committee to the Central Government
\n     against  non-registration.\t Section
\n     11 is  the sub  moto power\t of  the
\n     Central Government\t in exercise  of
\n     which power the Government can call
\n     for the  record of the Registration
\n     Committee in  respect of  any  case
\n     for  the\tpurpose\t of   satisfying
\n     itself  as\t  to  the   legality  or
\n     propriety of  the of  the decision.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 13\t is the\t power to  grant
\n     licence and  any person desirous of
\n     manufacturing   or\t   selling    or
\n     exhibiting for sale or distributing
\n     any insecticide  is bound to have a
\n     licence under  Section 13.\t Section
\n     14 is  the power  of the  licensing
\n     officer to revoke. suspend or amend
\n     the licence  issued  under\t Section\n<\/p>\n
     13. Section  17 is\t the prohibition
\n     for import\t as well  as manufacture
\n     of certain insecticides. Section 26
\n     is\t  the\tpower\tof   the   state
\n     Government to require any person or
\n     class   of\t   persons   to\t  report
\n     occurence of poisioning through the
\n     use or  handling of any insecticide
\n     coming   within   his   cognizance.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 27\t the  interpretation  of
\n     which    comes\tup    for    our
\n     consideration in  the case\t in hand
\n     contains the  power of  the Central
\n     Government in purported exercise of
\n     which  the\t impugned  notifications
\n     have been\tissued. Since  the  same
\n     provision\t     requires\t     the
\n     consideration  of\tthis  Court  the
\n     same is  extracted\t hereinbelow  in
\n     extenso:\n<\/p>\n
     27.  Prohibition\tsale.  etc.   of
\n     insecticides for  reasons of public
\n     safety.-(1)  If  on  receipt  of  a
\n     report   under    section\t 26   or
\n     otherwise, the  Central  Government
\n     or\t the   State  Government  is  of
\n     opinion, for reasons to be recorded
\n     in writing,  that the  use\t of  any
\n     insecticide specified in sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) of  clause (e) of section 3 or
\n     any  specific   batch  thereof   is
\n     likely  to\t involve  such\trisk  to
\n     human  beings   or\t animals  as  to
\n     render it expedient or necessary to
\n     take  immediate  action  than  that
\n     Government may,  by notification in
\n     the official  Gazette, prohibit the
\n     sale, distribution\t or use\t of  the
\n     insecticide or batch. In such area,
\n     to such extend and such period (not
\n     exceeding sixty  days)  as\t may  be
\n     specified\t in   the   notification
\n     pending  investigation   into   the
\n     matter:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided\t  that\t   where     the
\n     investigation  is\t not   completed
\n     within the said period. the central
\n     Government or the State Government,
\n     as the case my be, may extend it by
\n     such further  period or periods not
\n     exceed  in\t  thirty  days\t in  the
\n     aggregate\tas  it\tmay  specify  in
\n     alike manner.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) If,  as a  result  of\tits  own
\n     investigation or  on receipt of the
\n     report from  the state  Government.\n<\/p>\n
     and  after\t consultation  with  the
\n     Registration Committee. the Central
\n     Government, is  satisfied that  the
\n     use  of  the  said\t insecticide  or
\n     batch is  or is not likely to cause
\n     any such  risk, it\t may  pass  such
\n     order (including  an order refusing
\n     to\t register   the\t insecticide  or
\n     cancelling\t  the\tcertificate   of
\n     registration, if  any,  granted  in
\n     respect thereof),\tas it deems fit,
\n     depending on  the circumstances  of
\n     the case.”\n<\/p>\n
     Section 36\t is the\t rule making  power of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
     An examination  of the  aforesaid provisions of the Act
\nindicates that\tbefore registering  a particular insecticide
\nthe Registration  Committee  is\t duty  bound  to  hold\tsuch
\nenquiry as  it deems  fit for  satisfying  itself  that\t the
\ninsecticide to\twhich the  application relates\tis  safe  to
\nhuman beings  and animals.  Coming now\tto the core question
\nnamely whether\tunder Section  27 of  the  Act\tthe  central
\nGovernment can\tcancel the  Certificate of  Registration  in
\nrespect of  an insecticide. It appears to us that under sub-
\nsection (1) of section 27 when the Central Government or the
\nState Government  is of\t the opinion  that the\tuse  of\t any
\ninsecticide specified  in sub-clause  (iii) of clause (e) of
\nsection 3 or any specific batch thereof is likely to involve
\nrisk to\t human beings or animals and it is necessary to take
\nimmediate action  then on  recording reasons  in writing the
\nsale. distribution or use of the insecticide or batch can be
\nprohibited in  such area.  to such  extent not\texceeding 60
\ndays  as  may  be  specified  in  the  notification  pending
\ninvestigation into  the matter. In other words, In respect o
\nan insecticide\twithin the  meaning of\tsection 3(e)  ((iii)
\ni.e. a preparation or formulation  containing anyone or more
\nof  such   substances  specified     in\t the  schedule.\t the
\nappropriate  Government\t  can  immediately   by\t  issue\t  of
\nnotification prohibit  the sale.  distribution or use of the
\nsame pending  investigation. Under the proviso to subsection
\n(1) of\tsection 27.  if the  investigation is  not completed
\nwithin the  period  of\t60  days  then\tthe  prohibition  in
\nquestion could\tbe extended  for  such\tfurther\t period\t not
\nexceeding 30 days in the aggregate. Under sub-section (2) if
\nthe Central Government on the basis of its own investigation
\nor on  receipt of  the report  from the state Government and
\nafter  consultation   with  the\t Registration  Committee  is
\nsatisfied that\tthe use\t of the said insecticide or batch is
\nor is  not likely  to cause  any such  risk then it may pass
\nsuch order  as it deems fit depending upon the circumstances
\nof the\tcase. either refusing to register the insecticide or
\ncancel the  Certificate of Registration. If already granted.
\nThe use\t of the\t word said  insecticide in  sub-section\t (2)
\nobviously refers  to the  insecticide in  question which was
\nthe subject  matter of\tconsideration under  sub-section (1)
\nand in\trespect of  which pending further investigation into
\nthe matter  the Central\t Government   has already  issued  a
\nprohibition for sale, distribution or use of the insecticide
\nin  question.\tTherefore,  the\t power\tof  cancellation  of
\nCertificate  of\t Registration  conferred  upon\tthe  Central
\nGovernment under  sub-section  (2)  of\tSection\t 27  can  be
\nexercised only\tin respect  of any  insecticide specified in
\nsub-clause (iii)    of\tclause\t(e)  of\t section  3  i.e.  a
\npreparation or\tformulation of one or more of the substances
\nspecified in  the schedule  but the  said  power  cannot  be
\nexercised in respect of an insecticide which is specified in
\nthe schedule  itself by\t the Parliament.  We are  unable  to
\naccept the  agreements advanced\t by the\t learned  Additional
\nSolicitor General  that sub-section (2) of section 27 is not
\nrestricted to an insecticide in respect of which the Central
\nGovernment has already issued a notification prohibiting the
\nsale. distribution  or use  pending investigation  into\t the
\nmatter. The Scheme of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of
\nsection 27 is that in respect of a formulation which is also
\nan insecticide within the meaning of section 3 (e) (iii) the
\nCentral Government for reasons to be recorded in writing and
\npending\t investigation\t into  the  matter  can\t immediately
\nprohibit  sale.\t  distribution\tor  use\t and  after  further
\ninvestigation can  cancel the Certificate of Registration in
\nrespect thereof\t under sub-section  (2) of  Section 27. That
\nbeing the  position in\texercise of  such power\t under\tsub-
\nsection (2)  of section\t 27 a certificate of Registration in
\nrespect of  an insecticide under sub-section 3(e) (i) cannot
\nbe cancelled  under sub-section\t (2) of\t section 27. This is
\nalso in\t consonance with the logic that an insecticide which
\nis the\tformulation of\tany one\t or more  of the  substances
\nspecified in  the schedule and is consumer oriented power of
\ncancellation of\t registration certainly\t has been  conferred
\nupon the central Government but in respect of an insecticide
\nwhich does  not come  to  a  consumer  and  is\ta  substance
\nspecified  in\tthe  schedule\titself\tand   therefore\t  an
\ninsecticide under  section 3(e)\t (i), the power has not been
\nconferred upon\tthe Central  Government since  the specified
\nsubstance  in\tthe  schedule  has  been  specified  by\t the
\nParliament itself.  In view  of the  aforesaid conclusion of
\nours we\t would\thold  that  those  of  the  Certificates  of
\nRegistration granted  to the  petitioner in  respect of\t any
\nformulations namely  BHC 10%  WP, the  order of\t the Central
\nGovernment cancelling  Certificate of  Registration is\twell
\nwithin the  jurisdiction and  there is no legal infirmity in
\nthe same.  But in  respect of  Benzene Hexachloride which is
\none of\tthe substances specified in the schedule and as such
\nis an  insecticide within  the meaning\tof section  3 (e)(i)
\nthere is  no power  with the  Central Government  under sub-
\nsection (2)  of section\t 27 to\tcancel\tthe  Certificate  of
\nRegistration.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  contention\t of  Mr.  Vaidyanathan,\t the
\nlearned senior\tcounsel appearing for the petitioners in the
\ntransferred case  that consultation  with  the\tRegistration
\ncommittee is  a pre-condition  for exercise  of power  under
\nsub-section (2)\t and such  consultation being not there. the
\nissuance of  notification is  bad we  are of  the considered
\nopinion that  undoubtedly before the power under sub-section
\n(2) of section 27 can be exercised the central Government is
\nduty  bound  to\t have  consultation  with  the\tRegistration
\nCommittee. But\tin the\tcase in\t hand  having  examined\t the
\ncounter-affidavits  filed   on\tbehalf\t of  the   different
\nMinistries of the Central Government that there has been due
\nand substantial consultation with the Registration Committee
\nwhich is  apparent in  the  notification  of  December\t1994
\nitself. and since then there has been further study into the
\nmatter and  committees of  experts have been constituted who
\nhave gone  into the  matter and\t on the basis of the reports
\nsubmitted by  such expert  committee ultimately\t the Central
\nGovernment has\ttaken the final decision. It is not possible
\nfor us\tto hold that there has been no consultation with the
\nRegistration Committee before exercising of power under sub-
\nsection (2)  of section\t 27. Contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan.
\nthe learned  senior counsel on this score. therefor, must be
\nrejected. Before we part with this case. and having examined
\nthe different  provisions of  the Insecticides\tAct. 1968 we
\nfind that  once a  substance is specified in the schedule as
\ncontemplated under  Section 3(e)(i)  then there\t is no power
\nfor  cancelling\t  the  registration  certificate  issued  in
\nrespect of the same substance even if on scientific study it
\nappears\t that\tthe  substance\t in  question\tis   grossly
\ndetrimental to\tthe human  health. This\t is a  lacuna in the
\nlegislation itself. and therefore, steps should be taken for
\nappropriate amendment to the legislation. In the net result,
\ntherefore,  writ   petition  is\t  disposed   of\t  with\t the
\nobservations made  earlier and\tthe  transferred  cases\t are
\nallowed to  the extent\tindicated above.  There will  be  no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 Author: Pattanaik. Bench: S.C. Agrawal, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: DR. ASHOK Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH TRANSFER CASE (C) NOS.2 & 3 OF 1997 J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\"},\"wordCount\":8757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\",\"name\":\"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997","datePublished":"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997"},"wordCount":8757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997","name":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-19T21:28:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ashok-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}