"Seems You Keep Appointing Committees Till You Get A Favourable Decision": Supreme Court Questions Centre On Pesticide Ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a plea seeking the elimination of harmful chemicals and pesticides used in the country, raised concerns over the Union Government's repeated formation of expert committees to review the banning of pesticides. The court questioned the rationale behind appointing several committees when the initial expert committee had already recommended the banning of 27 pesticides in the country.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, said that the impression was that the Union Government kept appointing committees until they obtained a favorable decision.

The matter stems from reports submitted in December 2015 by Dr. Anupam Varma Committee whose findings categorically recommended a ban on 13 pesticides out of a total of 66 under scrutiny. However, objections were raised by the pesticides industry association concerning the committee's recommendations. In response, the government established the Dr. SK Malhotra Committee in 2017 to review the status of 27 pesticides. Subsequently, the committee reiterated the need for a continued ban on those 27 pesticides in 2018. Later, another sub-committee was later formed by the Pesticide Registration Committee (RC), which serves as the apex body regulating pesticides in India. This newly formed committee, under Dr. SK Khurana, was tasked with reviewing the same 27 pesticides. Based on Khurana's observations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoFAW) issued a draft notification in May 2020, proposing to ban certain pesticides.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the Central government, defended the government's actions, stating that they followed a systematic process based on scientific advice. ASG Banerjee argued-

"We have a process. We trust the science. We act in terms of science. Committee banned 3 and then asked for objections. We entertained those also...The draft proposal is merely a draft and has not been finalised. Objections, suggestions by the stakeholders were reviewed."

However, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, countered the ASG's arguments, pointing out that the Anupam Varma committee and the subsequent Khurana committee had both recommended the banning of the same 27 pesticides. Yet, a new committee, the Rajendran committee, was appointed, which later produced differing recommendations. Bhushan expressed skepticism over the need for the government to keep forming additional committees when the first two committees had already suggested a ban. He said–

"Every ingredient of Section 27 is satisfied. Where is the question of forming another expert Committee?"

At this juncture, CJI DY Chandrachud also questioned the government's approach, asking why the formation of a new committee was necessary after Khurana's recommendation. He sought clarification on the basis for the Rajendran committee's divergent stance and inquired about the reasons behind the change of view. He asked–

"Why do you have to make so many committees? Once Khurana recommended the ban of 27, why make another? What was the basis of Khurana committee recommending ban on 27? And then why did Rajendran committee say 3? Show us what led the Rajendran committee to take a different view than Khurana committee?...It seems that every time you have an adverse report from one committee you form a new committee. You keep appointing committees till you get a favourable decision."

In response to the court's queries, the ASG requested time to submit a detailed note regarding the matter. The Chief Justice agreed to take up the case again on the following Tuesday (August 1) allowing the government time to present its arguments.