|
Open Page
The problem of garbage
THE YEAR 1994 saw Surat go down in the annals of history as the city which witnessed the worst case of epidemic plague. One of the primary reasons for the epidemic was the accumulated filth and garbage which acted as a breeding ground for rodents. Surat has since revamped the entire garbage disposal system and is now acknowledged as one of the cleanest cities in India. Other cities in India, however, have a long way to go with respect to garbage disposal/solid waste management.
Article 243W read with the twelfth schedule of the Constitution fastens the responsibility of solid waste management (SWM) on the municipalities. SWM is a mandatory function of the municipality, yet this aspect of civic administration has not received its due attention. A public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court in 1998 to direct the local bodies as well as the Government of India and the State Governments to improve the SWM practices. The Supreme Court thereafter appointed a committee to look into all aspects of solid waste management and submit a report to it. The report known as the Barman Committee report, after the Chairman, was submitted in March 1999. The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (the "Rules") was issued by the Central Government pursuant to this report, in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the "EPA"). The Rules have substantially incorporated the recommendations of the committee and made an attempt to delineate responsibilities and cast duties on the citizens as well as the municipalities for SWM.
Local bodies like Municipal Corporation/ Council/Nagar Panchayat have the responsibility to enforce these Rules. Under the Rules a wide spectrum of functions are to be undertaken by local bodies such as collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW). The main functions include:
(i) Prohibit littering on the street.
(ii) Organise house to house waste collection and notify the public about the schedule and the methodology of collection.
(iii) Conduct awareness programmes to disseminate information to the public and hold regular meetings with the resident welfare groups and NGOs.
(iv) Devise ways to collect waste from unsanitary and difficult areas such as slums, hotels, restaurants, office complexes and commercial areas.
(v) Build adequate storage facilities taking into account the population density so as to prevent overflowing of trash cans.
(vi) Colour-code waste bins so as to promote segregation of waste at source — green for biodegradable, white for recyclable wastes and black for other wastes.
(vii) The wastes are to be transported only in closed vans to avoid spilling of wastes.
(viii) Dispose of the collected wastes by adopting any of the prescribed methods such as vermin-composting, anaerobic digestion, incineration, pelletisation, etc. Landfill is to be adopted for inert waste.
The participation of the citizens is an underlying principle of these Rules. Towards this the citizens have two main responsibilities:
1. Avoid littering and ensure the delivery of wastes in accordance with the delivery system notified by the respective local body.
2. Segregation of waste at source.
A law is only as good as its implementation. Most local authorities are yet to take steps to implement these Rules. The first deadline for improving landfill sites passed on March 31, 2001. The local authorities have cited financial constraints as the main reason for non-enforcement. But the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand categorically stated that financial constraints do not absolve a municipality from performing its functions.
Citizens have to take an interest in solving the problem of solid waste. Vigilant citizens' groups can make a difference. The Environment Protection Act under which these Rules have been issued has provided a window for citizens to take initiative. Under Section 19 of the Act a citizen can give a complaint to the court for an offence under the Act after giving 60 days notice of the alleged offence and the intent to file a complaint with the government official authorised to make such complaints. In addition to this, the citizens can give a complaint under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the magistrate, asking him to issue orders to remove a public nuisance. A citizen may also seek the remedy of a writ of mandamus under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution. While writs under Article 32 only relate to fundamental rights, writs under Article 226 can be issued for enforcement of fundamental rights and "for any other purpose". Non-disposal of garbage is a serious environmental risk and hence would be a violation of Article 21 which guarantees the "Right to Life". However writ remedy is given very cautiously by the courts. Additionally, if the local bodies impose a fee for the performance of solid waste management services a remedy may be available under the Consumer Protection Act also. This remedy is however subject to the immunities and redress mechanism provided for in the Local Municipal Acts.
ALICE GEORGE
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
