Reaffirming Environmental PIL Powers: High Court upholds its authority to mandate ongoing awareness campaigns and ban enforcement on plastics under 120 microns; binding authority for Meghalaya authorities and subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | PIL/7/2024 of PHUYOSA YOBIN Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. |
| CNR | MLHC010008422024 |
| Date of Registration | 02-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Chief Justice I. P. Mukerji |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Justice W. Diengdoh (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Meghalaya |
| Bench | I. P. Mukerji, C.J.; W. Diengdoh, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing environmental PIL powers |
| Type of Law | Environmental law; PIL jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Can a High Court, under its public interest jurisdiction, direct continuous enforcement measures (ban, awareness, seizure and destruction) against single-use plastics below 120 microns? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court, exercising its inherent PIL powers, may issue and supervise directives requiring state authorities to prohibit, seize, destroy and mount public awareness campaigns against single-use plastic products under 120 microns, and may dispose of the petition with a liberty to revive upon future non-compliance. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court based its decision on implementation compliance with earlier orders and its supervisory PIL jurisdiction over environmental protection. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The PIL challenged indiscriminate use of sub-120 micron single-use plastics; earlier orders mandated bans, seizures, destruction and awareness drives; the State filed action-taken reports, and the petitioner confirmed satisfaction. |
| Citations | 2025:MLHC:759-DB; CNR MLHC010008422024 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | State Government of Meghalaya and its subordinate authorities |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts handling environmental PILs |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that under PIL jurisdiction it can mandate ongoing enforcement measures—including procurement blocks, seizure, destruction and public awareness—for environmental protection.
- Compliance can be demonstrated through district-wise action-taken reports, which, if satisfactory, permit disposal with residual supervisory control.
- Disposal “with liberty to apply afresh” ensures that courts retain power to reopen matters upon any future breach of environmental directives.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Continuing Supervision
The Court recalled its earlier orders banning single-use plastics under 120 microns, mandating awareness campaigns and enforcement actions by district authorities. - State Cooperation
Action-taken reports for East Jaintia Hills and East Khasi Hills demonstrated full compliance, with similar measures asserted in other districts. - Petitioner’s Satisfaction
The petitioner, appearing in person, confirmed his satisfaction with the State’s measures, prompting the Court to accept the reports. - Final Disposal with Liberty
The PIL was disposed of, subject to a liberty to any person to file a fresh application upon proof of breach, thereby maintaining supervisory jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that he was fully satisfied with the State’s public awareness efforts and enforcement steps against single-use plastics under 120 microns.
Respondent (State)
- Highlighted filing of detailed action-taken reports for East Jaintia Hills and East Khasi Hills districts.
- Confirmed that equivalent measures—awareness drives and prohibition—had been implemented across other districts.
Factual Background
A public interest litigation was filed to curb the environmental threat posed by indiscriminate use of single-use plastics under 120 microns. The High Court had issued several prior orders for awareness campaigns, prohibition of manufacture, sale, procurement and use, and directed seizure and destruction of contraband. The State filed district-wise action-taken reports, which the petitioner reviewed and found satisfactory. The Court, upon accepting compliance, disposed of the PIL while preserving a right to reopen if orders were violated.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the High Court’s established PIL supervisory authority in environmental matters.
Citations
- 2025:MLHC:759-DB
- CNR MLHC010008422024