Yesterday, while hearing a bunch of public interest litigations (PIL) filed by NGO Vanashakti and others challenging the February 2023 order of the Centre banning only three pesticides, the Supreme Court asked the Centre why it had to constitute multiple committees to review ban on pesticides even as judges indicated that it appeared to be an effort by the government to secure a favourable decision.

The petitions submitted that back in 2020, a sub-committee formed under SK Khurana had recommended ban on 27 pesticides for being carcinogenic. Replacing this finding, the Centre formed a committee headed by TP Rajendran in September 2022 which restricted the ban to just three names.

To this, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud , Justices JB Pardiwala , Manoj Misra said, “Why do you have so many committees. You keep appointing committees till you get a favourable response.”

“We want to know why the Khurana committee recommended ban on 27 pesticides and Rajendran committee reduced it to just 3... It seems that every time you have an adverse report from one committee, you constituted a new committee.”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, appearing for Centre, informed the court that the government took the decision considering the science involved and as per procedure.

“The petitioners do not like the science nor the procedure and hence they are complaining.”

“We want to be satisfied that you followed the science as well as the procedure,” the bench said.

The petitions were argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan who said that the government must come clean on why 27 pesticides were not banned. According to him, this was contained in the draft notification for imposing ban in 2018 due to the use of carcinogenic chemicals posing threat to human life. Additionally, the PIL also sought ban on other pesticides not included in the draft notification.

The next date of hearing is on 1st August.

Bhushan said the pesticides allowed by India were banned internationally as they were found to cause health hazards for children, and that the government succumbed to the industry lobby that never favours a ban.

The draft notification recommending the ban on 27 pesticides was also a result of a study by a committee headed by SK Malhotra which submitted its report in 2017. The NGO Vanashakti had approached the top court in 2017 demanding that the ban be expanded to use of other pesticides as well, which is still being considered by the top court.