[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Human Rights ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 1385 of 2012
Jharkhand Human Rights Conference-JHRC, registered under Society
Registration Act, 21, 1860 having registration No. 386/05-06, having its
office at Quarter No. S-5, Eye Hospital Campus, Sakchi, Jamshedpur
through its Central Chairman, Manoj Mishra, Son of Late S.D. Mishra,
presently residing at Quarter no. S-5, Eye Hospital Campus, Sakchi,
Jamshedpur, Post Sakchi, Police Station Sakchi, District-East
Singhbhum ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating
from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education
and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating
from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi
4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police
Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
5. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur,
officiating from Jamshedpur, Post Jamshedpur, Police Station
Mango, District East Singhbhum
6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, officiating from Jamshedpur, Post Jamshedpur, Police
Station Mango, District East Singhbhum
7. The Jharkhand State Pollution Board, Ranchi through its Member
Secretary, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police
Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
8. The Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board,
Adityapur, Officiating from Adityapur, post Adityapur, Police
Station Adityapur, District East Singhbhum
9. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi
10.Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad
11.Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur
Page 1 of 24
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
12.The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand, Officiating from
Nursery Premises, Post & Police Station Dhurwa, Ranchi.
13.The Managing Director, Medicare Environment Management Pvt.
Ltd., Ramky Grandiose, 13th Floor, Ramky Towers Complex,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032, Telangana.
14.The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, New Delhi.
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
Mr. Abhijeet Anand, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
For the UOI: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Dy.S.G.I.
Mr. Karbir, A.C. to Dy.S.G.I.
For the JSPCB: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate
For the RIMS: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate
For Resp. No.9/SEIAA: Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.13: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Saman Ahmad, Advocate
For Resp. 11/JNAC: Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the RMC: Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 16.02.2026 Pronounced on: 26/02/2026
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.
1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2) By means of this Public Interest Litigation instituted in 2012, the
Jharkhand Human Rights Conference, a registered social welfare entity
dedicated to public health and ecological preservation, seeks robust
enforcement of the statutory regime governing biomedical waste.
3) The petitioner essentially prays for the issuance of appropriate
writs and directions to ensure that healthcare institutions across the
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
State of Jharkhand strictly adhere to the protocols for the management,
handling, and disposal of such biomedical waste.
4) While the petition initially invoked the Bio-Medical Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1998, these have since been
superseded by the 2016 Rules. The prayer further seeks consequential
directions to prevent the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous
biomedical waste in public spaces, thereby safeguarding both public
health and the environment.
5) At the threshold, it is imperative to emphasise the gravity of the
concerns raised. Biomedical waste, by its inherent character, consists of
materials that are not only potentially infectious but also pose a
significant hazard to human life and the delicate ecological balance.
Such waste, which may be broadly defined as any unwanted residual
matter arising from hospital operations or related clinical activities, is
generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunisation of humans
and animals, as well as during associated research. The handling of
biomedical substances demands meticulous oversight and strict
adherence to scientific procedures. Any administrative or institutional
laxity in this sphere brings grave and irreversible consequences.
6) Bio-Medical Waste (BMW) carries disease-spreading pathogens
that act as vectors for life-threatening ailments and, therefore, poses
serious risks to public health. Furthermore, beyond the immediate
clinical dangers, such waste presents a formidable threat to
environmental integrity, as toxic releases contaminate air, water and
soil. Untreated biomedical waste dumped in open or vacant areas
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
degrades soil and contributes to the pollution of already scarce
freshwater resources. Moreover, even accepted methods of disposal,
such as incineration, are not free from environmental consequences, as
they may release carcinogenic substances into the atmosphere if not
scientifically regulated. Consequently, the management of such waste
must strictly conform to the prescribed statutory and procedural
mandates. Otherwise, in the absence of a rigorous regulatory protocol
and its effective enforcement, a silent biological hazard emerges that
not only endangers public health but also undermines the majesty of the
law.
7) In Dr B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India and Others, reported in
(1996) 2 SCC 594, while dealing with the broader issue of municipal
solid waste, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically emphasised the
peril originating from healthcare institutions. This ruling remains
foundational as it recognized the distinct hazards of bio-medical waste
at a time when no dedicated regulatory framework existed, thereby
necessitating judicial intervention to safeguard the fundamental right to
a clean and healthy environment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed
local bodies to ensure private hospitals made adequate disposal
arrangements. These institutions were required to construct their own
incinerators or pay for municipal services. By directing AIIMS to install
effective disposal facilities, the Court placed the primary duty on the
healthcare institutions themselves. This landmark intervention protected
the "vital stake" citizens hold in a clean and healthy environment.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
8) This intervention from the Hon'ble Apex Court likely prompted
the Government to realise the necessity of a formal legal mechanism.
Consequently, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, exercising
powers under Sections 3, 6, and 25 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, notified the parent rules. These were the Bio-Medical Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1998. This statutory scheme was
not intended to be a mere formality but a valid exercise of legislative
competence. It established that the right to operate a healthcare facility
is not absolute but is strictly governed by the enactment creating these
obligations.
9) However, post-1998, the situation on the ground did not change
significantly. Due to persistent administrative laxity and a lack of
coordination between various agencies, the rules failed to achieve their
desired objective. The "procedural mandates" remained largely on
paper, while the indiscriminate disposal of hazardous waste continued
to threaten public health. Consequently, the constitutional Courts of this
country were repeatedly compelled to intervene. In this context, it is
pertinent to note that mere failure to enforce a statute does not render it
ineffective; rather, it may necessitate judicial oversight to ensure that
the rule of law is not undermined by executive inaction.
10) The persistent apathy of authorities even after the 1996 directives
compelled further judicial intervention in the case of Almitra H. Patel
v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (2) SCC 679, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, disturbed by the "open garbage" condition of cities,
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
constituted a committee for Class 1 cities (population over 1 lakh) to
suggest scientific solutions for urban solid waste. This proactive stance
was mirrored by various Hon'ble High Courts, such as in the case of
C.S. Prakash v. HUDA, reported in ILR (2001) A.P. 323 (328) DB,
where the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court underscored that
protecting the environment falls under the canopy of Article 21,
mandating that no hospital be permitted without a verified mechanism
for biomedical waste disposal.
11) The duty of institutions to handle waste without adverse effects
was further solidified by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of
Environment Monitoring Forum v. Union of India, reported in
MANU/KE/0894/2003, while the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that
all such institutions which are generating bio-medical waste have to
handle such waste in a prescribed manner which do not cause
environmental damage.
12) Even, Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Maitree Sansad
v. State of Orissa, reported in 103 (2007) CLT 91 and the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of P.K. Nayyar v. Union of India,
reported in 198 (2013) DLT 689, have consistently recognized that
biomedical waste is a hazardous menace that cannot be dumped in
municipal bins or situated near residential habitats, as the right to a
pollution-free environment is an integral facet of the right to life.
13) Despite the earlier interventions, the 1998 regime often faltered
due to administrative laxity and a persistent lack of coordination. To
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
bridge these gaps, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change notified the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016,
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This new policy marked
a significant departure from the previous localised approach, enhancing
the entire lifecycle of waste management from segregation to final
disposal. The ambit of the law was notably expanded to include
previously unregulated entities such as vaccination camps, blood
donation centres, and surgical camps.
14) These Rules introduced stringent measures to ensure a "cradle-
to-grave" accountability mechanism, including the mandatory bar-
coding of waste bags for tracking and the phasing out of chlorinated
plastic materials. Furthermore, the policy prioritised safety through
mandatory pre-treatment of infectious waste and regular training for
healthcare personnel. By streamlining waste categories and tightening
emission standards, the 2016 framework ensures that the duty of
healthcare institutions is no longer a mere formality, but a scientifically
grounded obligation aimed at safeguarding environmental integrity.
15) With the notification of the 2016 Rules, it was reasonably
expected that the management of biomedical waste would undergo a
transformative shift. The introduction of sophisticated tracking,
mandatory pre-treatment, and centralised disposal was intended to
professionalise a sector long marred by neglect. However, despite this
upgraded statutory structure, the actual situation on the ground
remained largely stagnant. The transition from policy to practice was
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
stifled by the same administrative lethargy that had plagued the 1998
regime.
16) In many instances, the "cradle-to-grave" accountability remained
a mere paper exercise. Reports from across the country, including
Jharkhand, indicate that the lack of inter-departmental coordination
continued to hamper the establishment of Common Bio-Medical Waste
Treatment Facilities (CBWTFs) in several districts. Consequently,
healthcare institutions, particularly in remote areas, often reverted to
rudimentary and hazardous disposal methods. This persistent gap
between legislative intent and executive action suggests that mere
enactment of stricter rules is insufficient without a robust enforcement
mechanism. As we have often observed, when the "procedural
mandates" of an environmental statute are ignored, the "vital stake" of
the public is directly compromised, necessitating the sustained judicial
oversight of this Court.
17) It is pertinent to observe, in the context, that since its inception in
2012, the focus of this Court in the instant matter has constantly
remained on the "proper administration of justice" and the protection of
the "vital stake" held by the public in their own health and safety. Even
in the period between 2012 and 2016, this Court remained steadfast in
its focus on the implementation of the earlier 1998 Rules. Post-2016,
the approach of this Court changed vis-à-vis the introduction of the new
rules and the change in the policy.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
18) During the pendency of the proceedings, this Court has, on
numerous occasions, been constrained to observe a lack of seriousness,
coordination, and prompt action on the part of the statutory authorities
entrusted with this responsibility. The orders passed from time to time
reveal not isolated lapses but a continuing pattern of administrative
delay and ineffective enforcement of the statutory regime. Despite clear
directions, the authorities' response has remained piecemeal and largely
reactive. Consequently, while such monitoring is not ordinarily
required, this Court deemed it necessary in the present case because the
issue directly affects public health and environmental safety.
19) To put it briefly, the present proceedings commenced with the
order dated 9th November 2012, when this Court first noticed serious
deficiencies in biomedical waste management in Ranchi, Dhanbad and
Jamshedpur. The State Government and the Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board (JSPCB) were directed to disclose the steps taken to
implement the statutory framework.
20) By September 2013, it became evident that the State lacked even
basic consolidated data on healthcare institutions that generate
biomedical waste. This Court was therefore constrained to direct a
comprehensive statewide survey, as the material on record indicated
that disposal practices were inconsistent with statutory norms and posed
a risk to public health.
21) The concern deepened in November 2013, when inaccurate data
and photographic evidence revealed open dumping of infectious waste,
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
including sharps and microbiological material, on public roads and in
drains. Recognizing that the problem was systemic and extended
beyond urban centers, this Court expanded the scope of the proceedings
across the State and directed documentation of ground realities through
the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and District Legal
Services Authorities.
22) Despite the subsequent evolution of the regulatory regime from
the earlier rules to the more comprehensive 2016 framework,
challenges relating to infrastructure, coordination, and land allocation
persisted, as reflected in orders issued during 2014 and 2015 expressing
dissatisfaction with the slow progress of the authorities.
23) In the later phase, the focus shifted to the establishment and
operationalisation of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities
across the State, including monitoring of facilities at Lohardaga,
Ramgarh and Adityapur, while addressing administrative impediments.
A concerning situation was noted in 2024, in which existing facilities
were reportedly underutilised due to continued non-compliance by
certain healthcare institutions, leading this Court to require reports from
all Deputy Commissioners.
24) Most recently, upon suo motu cognisance of conditions at RIMS,
Ranchi, this Court ensured implementation of a structured mechanism
for scientific waste collection with effect from February 2026. The
progression of these proceedings demonstrates that sustained judicial
oversight was necessary to address systemic deficiencies and to secure
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
effective implementation of the statutory mechanism in the interest of
public health and environmental protection.
25) Be that as it may, the sustained monitoring by this Court has
yielded tangible and positive improvements in the State's biomedical
waste management framework. Most significantly, there has been a
notable expansion of treatment infrastructure. From a position where
only one facility was functional, Jharkhand now has six operational
Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities across Ramgarh,
Lohardaga, Dhanbad, Pakur and Deoghar. Further, an additional facility
is under construction at Giridih. This centralised infrastructure has
substantially reduced dependence on unsafe on-site disposal and
curtailed the proliferation of substandard captive incinerators within
healthcare establishments, thereby aligning with the legislative intent of
the 2016 Rules.
26) Moreover, progress has not been confined to infrastructure alone
but has extended to institutional strengthening. Coordinated training
and awareness programmes conducted by the Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board and the Department of Health have improved
compliance among healthcare facilities, including clinics, laboratories
and blood banks. Consequently, segregation at source and colour-
coding practices are increasingly being followed.
27) It is pertinent to note that compliance affidavits filed by Deputy
Commissioners and Civil Surgeons across districts indicate that the
requirements under the clinical establishment framework and
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
biomedical waste regulations are gradually being integrated into routine
administrative oversight. This, in turn, reflects an emerging culture of
regulatory compliance which was largely absent at the inception of
these proceedings.
28) Furthermore, accountability mechanisms have been strengthened
through periodic inspections and reporting structures mandated during
the course of these proceedings. A notable instance is seen at RIMS,
Ranchi, where scientific segregation and collection practices have been
operationalised pursuant to this Court's interventions.
29) Thus, the developments noticed during the pendency of these
proceedings demonstrate that sustained judicial oversight has
contributed to a more responsive and coordinated regulatory
framework, advancing the public interest in health, sanitation and
environmental safety.
30) Ultimately, biomedical waste management is not merely a matter
of regulatory compliance but is intrinsically linked to the protection of
public health and the right to a clean and safe environment, which
forms an integral component of the guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, recognising the
breadth of this constitutional protection, has held in Subhash Kumar v.
State of Bihar, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 598, that the right to life
includes the right to enjoy pollution-free air and water, thereby
affirming that environmental protection is not a matter of policy
discretion but a constitutional imperative. Improper handling and
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
disposal of biomedical waste, by its very nature, poses direct risks to
human health and ecological safety, and thus falls squarely within the
ambit of this constitutional guarantee.
31) In the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v.
Union of India, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court further emphasised that the preservation of human health and
dignity is of paramount importance and is entitled to constitutional
protection under Article 21. Accordingly, the progress recorded during
the pendency of these proceedings reflects not merely administrative
improvement, but a movement towards the fulfilment of constitutional
obligations owed by the State to its citizens.
32) Despite the existence of a comprehensive statutory framework
governing biomedical waste management, the circumstances which led
to the initiation and continuation of the present proceedings were rooted
in administrative inertia, lack of coordination among authorities, and
inadequate enforcement of the existing regulatory regime. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that judicial intervention in
matters concerning environmental protection and public health becomes
necessary where statutory authorities fail to effectively discharge their
obligations.
33) It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a
recent decision, in the proceedings arising out of Bhopal Municipal
Corporation v. Dr. Subhash C. Pandey & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
6174 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2023, by order dated
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
11.02.2026, observed that the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 2000 were replaced by the Solid Waste Management
Rules, 2016 and have now been superseded by the Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2026, which are to come into force with effect
from 01.04.2026. The Hon'ble Court emphasised that mere introduction
of new regulatory frameworks would not improve ground realities
unless the authorities undertake adequate preparatory measures and
infrastructure development prior to their enforcement, and noted that
deficiencies at the field level continue to impede effective
implementation of statutory mechanisms.
34) Subsequently, by order dated 19.02.2026 in the aforesaid matter,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued an extensive set of directions to
ensure that the newly introduced statutory framework becomes
workable in practice and reiterated that effective implementation of
waste management regimes is essential to protect the right to a clean
and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although
the observations were made in the context of municipal solid waste, the
underlying constitutional principles apply with equal force to
biomedical waste management, which involves even greater public
health implications.
35) The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
therefore, reinforce the necessity of ensuring strict and coordinated
implementation of the statutory framework governing biomedical waste
within the State and lend further support to the approach adopted in the
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
present proceedings, namely, that effective compliance requires
institutional coordination and accountability rather than mere regulatory
prescription.
36) At the same time, it has also been emphasised by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, time and again, that courts cannot assume the role of a
continuing administrator where a statutory mechanism is already in
place. It is well settled that the mere existence of a statutory framework
does not, by itself, ensure effective protection of rights unless the
authorities entrusted with its implementation discharge their duties in a
timely and coordinated manner. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently recognised that judicial intervention becomes
necessary where administrative inertia or inaction frustrates legislative
intent and renders statutory protections ineffective.
37) In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
(1984) 3 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasised that enactment
of welfare legislation would remain meaningless unless there is proper
implementation, and where governmental agencies exhibit apathy,
constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene so that fundamental
rights are not rendered illusory. Similarly, in Vineet Narain v. Union of
India, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
issued continuing mandamus and structural directions to ensure that
statutory investigative mechanisms functioned in accordance with the
rule of law, observing that judicial directions may be warranted where
administrative processes are obstructed or rendered ineffective.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
38) The same principle has been applied in environmental
governance, where enforcement requires coordinated action among
multiple authorities. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in
AIR 1988 SC 1115 and in the case of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised continuing supervisory jurisdiction
to secure implementation of environmental statutes where authorities
had failed to prevent ecological degradation despite the existence of
legal provisions. These decisions demonstrate that judicial monitoring
may become necessary to overcome institutional fragmentation,
bureaucratic indifference and regulatory paralysis, especially where
public health and environmental safety are implicated.
39) However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also repeatedly
cautioned that courts are not intended to assume perpetual
administrative control in areas governed by statutory mechanisms. In P.
Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2002) 4 SCC
578, the Hon'ble Court underscored the constitutional limits on judicial
law-making and emphasised that while courts may issue directions to
remedy failures or fill gaps, they must remain conscious of the doctrine
of separation of powers. Likewise, in the case of Ashwani Kumar v.
Union of India, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Apex
Court again underscored the point that judicial directions are primarily
remedial and facilitative, intended to secure enforcement of existing
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
law where executive action is deficient, rather than to substitute
statutory governance.
40) Thus, the settled legal position is that where statutory
mechanisms exist, but their implementation is weakened by
administrative inaction or lack of coordination, constitutional courts
may intervene to secure compliance and strengthen institutional
processes, while restoring primary responsibility to the statutory
authorities. It is in this backdrop that the present proceedings were
initiated and monitored.
41) Having regard to the statutory architecture now in place in the
State of Jharkhand under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules,
2016, the Jharkhand Clinical Establishments Rules, and the applicable
regulatory guidelines, this Court is satisfied that a sufficiently robust
institutional framework exists for implementation and enforcement.
Consequently, the primary responsibility must necessarily rest upon the
designated statutory authorities. However, the prolonged experience of
this litigation demonstrates that the mere existence of statutory
provisions does not automatically translate into effective compliance.
42) This Court was therefore compelled to exercise its jurisdiction to
overcome administrative stalemate, regulatory fragmentation, and
systemic inaction to safeguard public health and environmental safety.
Having regard to the progress achieved and the institutional
mechanisms now in place, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose
of this matter, pending since 2012, by issuing a broad set of directions
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
and guidelines so that implementation of the 2016 Rules does not again
falter and the menace of unscientific disposal and treatment of
biomedical waste does not resurface.
43) The directions issued herein are therefore not intended to create
new substantive obligations or to supplant the statutory regime, but are
confined to facilitating effective implementation of duties already
prescribed under law. Constitutional courts, while respecting the
doctrine of separation of powers, are nonetheless empowered to issue
such facilitative and coordinative directions where institutional inaction
or fragmentation impedes the realisation of fundamental rights.
44) Having regard to the progress achieved and the institutional
mechanisms now in place, this Court considers it appropriate to issue
certain broad directions to reinforce effective implementation of the
statutory framework. However, it is clarified that The Bio-Medical
Waste Management Rules, 2016 ("BMW Rules, 2016"), framed under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ("EPA, 1986"), together with
the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
from time to time, already prescribe the substantive obligations of
occupiers, operators and prescribed authorities. This Court therefore
confines itself to issuing coordination and enforcement directions to
operationalise the existing statutory framework, which shall operate in
addition to, and not in derogation of, the statutory obligations.
45) This Petition is now disposed of by issuing the following
directions:
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
a) The State Government shall designate a State Level Nodal
Officer, not below the rank of Secretary, for inter-departmental
coordination and monitoring of implementation of the BMW
Rules, 2016, within a period of 30 days from the date of this
order.
b) The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB)
shall maintain and periodically update a district-wise inventory
of all healthcare facilities (HCFs) that generate biomedical waste
and all authorised Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment
Facilities (CBMWTFs) operating within the State.
c) The JSPCB shall ensure that every HCF holds a valid
authorisation and is linked to an authorised treatment facility or
approved in-house treatment system.
d) The JSPCB, in consultation with the State Government,
shall undertake a State-wide gap analysis within three months of
the date of this order to assess treatment capacity, geographical
coverage, and infrastructure requirements.
e) The JSPCB shall ensure the implementation of bar-coding
and digital traceability systems across the chain of generation,
collection, transportation, and treatment of biomedical waste, as
per the existing rules and guidelines.
f) The responsibility for the collection and transportation of
bio-medical waste shall rest with the authorised CBMWTF
operator, who shall use only authorised vehicles under its
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
control, in accordance with applicable CPCB guidelines on
CBMWTF and disposal facilities. No unauthorized third-party
transportation arrangements shall be permitted. The JSPCB shall
verify compliance and act in accordance with the law.
g) The JSPCB shall conduct periodic and surprise inspections
of HCFs and CBMWTFs and initiate coercive action, including
suspension, closure, environmental compensation or prosecution,
where violations persist. Violations of the BMW Rules constitute
contraventions under the EPA, 1986 and are liable to action
under Sections 5 and 15 thereof, with prosecution to be initiated
in accordance with Section 19 of the Act.
h) The JSPCB shall maintain records of authorisations,
inspections, and enforcement actions, and compile statutory
reports as required by law.
i) The JSPCB shall develop and maintain a publicly
accessible digital dashboard that reflects district-wise
compliance status, inspections conducted, and enforcement
actions taken.
j) The State Advisory Committee and District Level
Monitoring Committees constituted under the BMW Rules,
2016, shall continue to function in accordance with the statutory
framework. Where District Committees are not functional, they
shall be made operational within sixty (60) days from the date of
this order.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
k) The Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate shall ensure
that biomedical waste is not mixed with municipal solid waste
within the district and shall periodically review compliance in
coordination with the Civil Surgeon, officials of the JSPCB, and
the Municipal/Urban Local Body authorities concerned,
wherever applicable.
l) The District Administration shall extend necessary
assistance to the JSPCB in inspections, monitoring and
enforcement.
m) The District Registering Authorities under the Jharkhand
Clinical Establishments Rules, 2013, shall treat compliance with
the BMW Rules as a condition for grant and renewal of
registration and shall initiate regulatory action, including
suspension or cancellation, where violations are reported.
n) In furtherance of Rule 4(r) of the BMW Rules, 2016,
healthcare facilities having more than thirty (30) beds shall
constitute a Bio-Medical Waste Management Committee, and
those having fewer beds shall designate a responsible nodal
officer. The name and contact details of such responsible persons
shall be placed in the public domain through the facility website
or, where unavailable, through prominent display within the
premises. Compliance with the same shall be verified by the
District Level Monitoring Committees.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
o) The State Health Department, in coordination with the
JSPCB, shall conduct periodic training and capacity-building
programmes for healthcare facilities and operators.
p) The JSPCB shall establish an accessible grievance
redressal mechanism, including an online portal, and maintain
records of complaints received and action taken.
q) The JSPCB shall undertake a verification exercise within
three months to identify instances where CBMWTFs have
entered into arrangements beyond their approved operational
jurisdiction or issued disposal certificates without corresponding
treatment activity and shall take action in accordance with law
against erring operators.
r) All authorities shall maintain records of inspections,
notices and enforcement actions to ensure transparency and
accountability.
s) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), Jharkhand, shall ensure that proposals relating to the
establishment or expansion of Common Bio-Medical Waste
Treatment Facilities, wherever requiring environmental
clearance under applicable law, are considered in consultation
with the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and in
accordance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules,
2016 and relevant guidelines, so that environmental safeguards
are duly addressed.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
46) In conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that the statutory
framework governing biomedical waste management in the State is
now operational with adequate mechanisms for coordination,
monitoring and enforcement. Judicial intervention was necessitated by
administrative inaction. However, continued supervision is neither
warranted nor consistent with the principle that primary responsibility
lies with the statutory authorities. Having said that, it is made clear that
any person aggrieved by future violations shall remain at liberty to seek
remedies in accordance with the law.
47) The Registry of this court is directed to forthwith communicate a
certified copy of this order to (i) the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board; (ii) the Principal Secretary/Secretary,
Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand; (iii) all Deputy Commissioners/District
Magistrates in the State; (iv) the Department of Urban Development &
Housing, Government of Jharkhand; (v) the Director of Health
Services, Government of Jharkhand; and (vi) the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand, for information and
necessary compliance.
48) The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board shall, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, upload a
copy of the entire order on its official website in a prominent and easily
accessible manner and circulate copies to all authorised Common Bio-
Medical Waste Treatment Facility operators and representative
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5689-DB
associations of healthcare establishments for wide dissemination and
compliance.
49) With these observations and directions, the present Public
Interest Litigation stands disposed of. In addition to this, all pending
IAs stand disposed of considering the directions issued herein-above, as
the grievances raised therein are adequately covered within the
framework of the present order.
50) Before parting, this Court records its sincere appreciation for the
efforts of the Petitioner, the State authorities, the Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board, and the District Administration and their
respective Counsels during these proceedings. The progress achieved
demonstrates that institutional reform is most effective when
constitutional oversight operates in aid of statutory governance rather
than in substitution thereof. No costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
February 26, 2026
A.F.R.
Manoj/Cp.2
Uploaded on 26.02.2026
