Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court directs government to ban import of hazardous wastes, align rules with BASEL Convention</h1> <h3>RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS</h3> RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 321 (SC) , 2012 (6) SCALE 253 Issues Involved:1. Ban on imports of hazardous/toxic wastes.2. Amendment of rules in conformity with the BASEL Convention and Articles 21, 47, and 48A of the Constitution.3. Constitutionality of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989.Detailed Analysis:1. Ban on Imports of Hazardous/Toxic Wastes:The writ petition was filed to challenge the import of toxic wastes from industrialized countries to India, arguing that such imports made India a dumping ground for hazardous wastes, violating Articles 14, 21, and 47 of the Constitution. The petitioner highlighted the BASEL Convention, which India signed, and argued that India should have amended its laws to align with the Convention. The Court initially asked all State Governments and Pollution Control Boards to submit affidavits on the implementation of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989. A High-Powered Committee was appointed to examine 14 specific issues related to hazardous waste management. The Court directed that the import of banned hazardous wastes should be strictly prohibited and that any hazardous waste imported should be handled according to the rules and regulations.2. Amendment of Rules in Conformity with the BASEL Convention and Articles 21, 47, and 48A of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that India should align its hazardous waste management laws with the BASEL Convention. The Court noted that the BASEL Convention prohibits the import of hazardous wastes without the consent of the importing country and mandates environmentally sound management of such wastes. The Court directed the Central Government to issue notifications banning the import of hazardous substances identified by the BASEL Convention and to ensure compliance with the Convention's provisions. The Court also emphasized the need for amendments to the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, to bring them in line with the BASEL Convention and the constitutional provisions.3. Constitutionality of the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989:The petitioner contended that the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, were unconstitutional as they did not provide adequate protection to workers and the public. The Court, however, observed that the Rules were in aid of Articles 21, 39(e), 47, and 48A of the Constitution and not in derogation of them. The Court directed strict compliance with the Rules, particularly in the matter of destruction of hazardous waste oil by incineration. The Court rejected the prayer to declare the Rules unconstitutional, emphasizing that they were essential for protecting the environment and public health.Additional Observations:The Court also addressed the issue of ship-breaking and the MARPOL Convention, which mandates the discharge of sludge oil for recycling. The Court directed that waste oil should be recycled under strict supervision and that the authorities should ensure compliance with the BASEL and MARPOL Conventions before allowing ships to enter Indian waters. The Court reiterated the importance of the polluter-pays principle and the precautionary principle in dealing with environmental pollution.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of by reasserting the interim directions regarding the handling of hazardous wastes and ship-breaking. The Central Government was directed to ban the import of hazardous/toxic wastes identified under the BASEL Convention and to amend the Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, to align with the Convention and constitutional provisions. The Court rejected the declaration that the Rules were unconstitutional, emphasizing their role in protecting the environment and public health.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found