Uttar Pradesh and ten other States yet to notify cancer including asbestos related cancer as notifiable disease, impeding creation of database of victims
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) welcomes the initiative of Jayant Chaudhary, union minister of state (independent charge) for skill development and entrepreneurship, and minister of state for education to persuade commerce ministry, corporate affairs ministry and finance ministry in order to make India free from asbestos like 72 countries. India has not been able to ban import, manufacturing and use of asbestos of all kinds, the carcinogenic mineral fiber because of lack of inter-ministerial coordination in the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. The union minister has written to Piyush Goyal, union minister of commerce and industry requesting him “to take a calibrated stand and decision on disallowing or disincentivising the import of asbestos.” The minister stressed the need to undertake an audit and assessment of the asbestos related usage and risks and how to phase out asbestos based products.
The main hurdle is the stance of commerce ministry which is caught in a time warp. It is yet to recognize that WTO’s Panel report dated September 18, 2000 adopted on April 5, 2001 and the 75 page-long report of the Appellate Body of WTO dated March 12, 2001 adopted on April 5, 2001 in the asbestos case ("European Communities–Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products") was consistent with Indian Supreme Court’s decision. The Appellate Body upheld panel’s report because the “measure at issue is ‘necessary to protect human … life or health’.” This finding and the conclusion of the Appellate Body endorses Supreme Court’s 24-page long judgement in Consumer Education & Research Centre & Others vs. Union of India & Others – [1995 3 SCC 42] which concluded: “we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. ” It also observed: “The expression ’life’ assured in Art.21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place and leisure.
In a significant development, the union minister has also written to Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh on the issue that data tracking with regard to victims of asbestos related diseases because cancer is not a notifiable disease in the state. Only 17 states have notified cancer as a disease. He has noted how in western UP villages, multiplicity of cases are coming up. He underlined that “it must be ensured that every case that goes to a hospital or clinic gets counted.” He made a compelling case for creation of database of victims of asbestos related diseases and schools, which will pave the way for the decontamination of school buildings. The minister’s view came to light from the interview published in The Week magazine in its June 22, 2025 issue.
Notably, according to a survey of U.P. Asbestos Limited, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and Allied Nippon Pvt Ltd, Gaziabad, (U.P), the lung function impairment was found to be higher in subjects exposed for more than 11 years. This was the
result of a Central Pollution Control Board sponsored project entitled
"Human risk assessment studies in asbestos industries in India". This was been reported in the (2001-2002) Annual Report of Industrial Toxicological Research Centre, Lucknow. It was also published in the 139th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment, Forests, Science and Technology and presented to the parliament on March 17, 2005. Qamar Rahman, a veteran toxicologist from Institute of Toxicology Research in Lucknow has documented asbestosis, an incurable ling disease in workers as young as 25. There is no recent report filed about these surveyed factories.
U P Asbestos Ltd has a factory in unit Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh as well. Notably, prior to the union minister’s letter, U.P. State Pollution Control Board (UPSPCB) had issued show cause notice dated December 10, 2022 to the answering respondents under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and a show cause notice of the same date under Section 33A and Section 27 (2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was issued to the Dadri unit.
The gnawing concern of the union minister is corroborated by the judgement dated July 17, 2023 by National Green Tribunal (NGT)'s Principal Bench of Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. Afroz Ahmad in O. A. No. 649/2022 Narender Pratap Singh vs. Central Pollution Control Board & Anr (2023). The NGT observed: "26....we consider it necessary to observe the exposure to Asbestos is risk factor for developing disabling & deadly lung diseases years after the exposure. Inhaling asbestos fibers can lead to scarring of the lung tissues, which can result in the loss of lung function, disability & death. Asbestos exposure can also cause cancer in the lungs & cancer (known as Mesothelioma) in the lining of the lungs or stomach. There is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Keeping in view the hazards of exposure associated with the handling of asbestos, following measures for protecting workers, their family members/persons coming in contact with them and residents of the locality are required to be implemented by the Project Proponent in letter and spirit:-
(i) Protecting Workers: The employers are required to protect workers by assessing asbestos levels, marking of regulated areas, posting hazard signs, engineering controls (ventilation systems with appropriate filters) and appropriate green belt and other technological measures to reduce level of asbestos in the air. The proper use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), need to be made mandatory for the workers.
(ii) Measures for Controlling Exposure: Smoking, eating or drinking in areas where asbestos exposure is possible should be prohibited. Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry cleanup of dust & debris containing asbestos should be avoided. Wearing protective outer clothing that can be removed & cleaned or discarded should be made mandatory. Washing exposed parts of the body with soap and water should be mandatory. ll precautions need to be taken to avoid carrying asbestos fibres out of worksite where they can later be inhaled by others (Viz. family members at home).
(iii) Medical Monitoring:Periodical exposure monitoring & medical surveillance of workers should be made mandatory.
(iv) Training: The workers, who may be exposed to airborne concentration of asbestos at or above Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), need to be trained prior to initial assignment and at least annually thereafter.
Ø The training programme must include information on the following:-
- The Health Effects associated with asbestos exposure - The relationship between smoking and asbestos exposure in producing lung cancer.
- The quality, location, manner of use, release, and storage of asbestos, and the specific nature of operations which could result in exposure to asbestos.
- The engineering controls and work practices associated with the worker’s job assignment."
NGT directed the CPCB "to issue appropriate guidelines covering similar asbestos based industries operating in the Country to strictly ensure compliance with EC and consent conditions as well as to follow the measures suggested in para 26 above for mitigating adversarial impacts of asbestos exposure on human health and environment." A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Member Secretaries, CPCB and UPPCB.
Hyderabad Industries Limited has one asbestos based plant in Industrial Area, Satharia, District, Jaunpur. Visaka Industries Limited has a asbestos plant in village Kannawanp, Bacharawan, Tehsil:Maharajganj, Rae Bareli which has expanded its Asbestos Cement Sheet plant from 1,20,000 to 3,20,000 TPA. Ferolite Jointings Ltd, Hilite Industries (P) Ltd, Jaypee Chunnar cement, Superlite Jointings Pvt Ltd, Triage Industries Pvt. Ltd. and UAL Industries Ltd, each have one unit of asbestos factory in U.P. Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board has granted consent to establish and operate these asbestos based units. Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has granted environmental clearance to these units. But no report has been filed about their compliance with the six specific directions of the Supreme Court given in Consumer Education & Resource Centre & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995).
It is noteworthy that due to bitter protest against the establishment of asbestos based factories in Bihar, five factories were stopped from being constructed after State government's intervention. Nitish Kumar, chief minister, Bihar has assured the state assembly on July 1, 2019 that no new asbestos plant will be allowed in the state. But two units of asbestos based plant of Chennai based Ramco Industries Limited are operating at Plot No.A-1, Industrial Area, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Road, Bihiya, Bhojpur in the vicinity of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. Notably, one one of its units have required clearances.
Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) had a consistent position against these two units of Ramco company’s hazardous asbestos plants pursuant to which Vivek Kumar Singh (IAS), as Chairman, BSPCB cancelled the Non-Objection Certificates (NOCs) given to the hazardous enterprise of Ramco company under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Rules 3 (1), Schedule 1 of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules under Environment (Protection) Act 1986. These Rules deal with hazardous wastes generated during the production of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials including asbestos-containing residues, discarded asbestos and dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment.
Following the cancellation of NOCs, the company approached the Appellate Authority to appeal against the cancellation. At the time of their appeal the Appellate Authority happened to be Vivek Kumar Singh himself who as Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) had cancelled their NOCs. The company used this apparent violation of the principle of natural justice as a ground to seek relief from the Patna High Court. It got the relief. Instead of confirming its order asking the State government to rectify the error by appointing a person as Appellate Authority in compliance with the principle of natural justice and unmindful of the fact that the fact of violation of environmental laws has not been disputed, the High Court allowed the company to operate its plant. But now that the Appellate Authority has been changed as per Court's directions and the error has been rectified and now the High Court has asked the Chairman, BSPCB to act after examining the complaint against it, the matter is before you.
BSPCB's legal action could not become effective because of the order of a single judge bench of Patna High Court on the limited ground of violation of natural justice. The order of Justice Jyoti Sharan dated 30 March, 2017 had directed the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar to rectify the error of Chairman of the BSPCB and the Appellate Authority being the same person.
It is a fact that the Court’s order did not dispute the finding of the Board with regard to violation of the environmental laws. It did not dispute that as asbestos and asbestos based industries are heavily polluting and have been categorised as R24 in the Red Category. (Source: http://bspcb.bih.nic.in/Categorization_10.10.18_new.pdf)
Subsequently, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Niku Agrawal passed another order modifying the previous order in the Bihar State Pollution Control Board v. Ramco Industries Ltd. on 30 April, 2018 (Letters Patent Appeal No.873 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 421 of 2017. The order authored by Justice Tripathi reads: "Since Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh no longer happens to be the Chairman of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, therefore, one of the reasons provided by the learned Single Judge for interfering with the order no longer holds good. It is left open to the new Chairman of Bihar State Pollution Control Board to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties."
The legal action taken by the BSPCB against the asbestos based factories of Ramco Industries Limited is praiseworthy. As a follow up of BSPCB’s previous action in this regard, there is a need to address the public health crisis as a consequence of ongoing unscientific and illegal disposal of hazardous and carcinogenic asbestos waste. The violation of all the general and specific conditions laid down in the NOC given by the BSPCB and the environmental clearance given by the Experts Appraisal Committee of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change by the company's factories in question is crying for attention.
The following news broadcasts capture the situation in Bihiya, Bhojpur-
1. Ramco Company: सरकार के साथ साथ दे रही जनता को धोखा, 2. रामको कंपनी ने बिहिया को बनाया डस्टबिन, 3.Asbestos के Sale व Use को Bihar में अब रोक दीजिए Nitish जी, नहीं तो बच्चे ऐसे ही सो जाते रहेंगे, and
4. Buying Asbestos is buying Cancer: Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
The following methods in disposing of asbestos waste (dust and fibers) by the company in question has been noticed at the site of both the units of Ramco company:
1. Using excavators the broken sheets are crushed and buried deep inside factory premises. The broken pieces pose a grave threat to the ground water shared by fertile agricultural land and villagers who use it for drinking purposes.
2. Since there is no space to bury the asbestos waste and broken asbestos products are sold to fictitious or known dealers on ex- factory basis to discard the company's responsibility for disposal. Normally, the destination of such disposal will be in remote locations and buried on fertile lands or used for land filling and covered by sand permanently. It seems to be a corporate crime but logical from the company's perspective as no one will pay 4 times the cost for transportation for a zero value material.
3. The broken ast based sheets are cut inside the factory into unmarketable sizes like 1 meter length and gifted as CSR activities. The cutting process emits a lot of asbestos dust and fibers harmful for the workers and villagers.
4. Broken asbestos sheets and wastes during transit handling or from customer end are brought to depot at various locations to harden top soil or land filling which again poses a threat to groundwater. Cutting broken bigger asbestos sheets also pose danger as asbestos fibers become airborne.
5. Wherever cement is handled in bags inside the factory it creates occupational hazard for workers due to asbestos dust particles. This is a threat to villagers as well because the air quality in the area gets polluted.
6. Ramco Industries Limited has been donating asbestos based roofs to the nearby Mahtin Mai temple and to the parking space of the District Magistrate's office as an exercise in ethical positioning of its brand and as a public relations exercise. The villagers, temple devotees and the district administration have been taken for a ride. They have acted in complete ignorance of the Board's action against Ramco's factories.
Union minister of health and chemicals informed the parliament on April 5, 2022 that “Directorate General Factory Advice Service & Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, carried out a ‘National Study on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Environment in Asbestos Cement Product Industries’ from November, 2018 to February, 2019 covering 50 functional asbestos cement product industries of the country. Out of 2603 workers, 10 cases were found to be suspected cases of asbestos related disorders.” This reply makes the recommendations of the UN’s Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention on chrysotile asbestos quite relevant. The issue of chrysotile asbestos has been on the agenda since COP-3 of the Rotterdam Convention.
Unmindful of this Bhupender Yadav, Union Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change informed the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Parliament) on April 7, 2022 that “There is no proposal under the consideration of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to prohibit the use of asbestos in the country….The MOEFCC grants the Environmental Clearance (EC) to industries engaged in asbestos milling and asbestos based products under schedule 4(c) of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA, 2006). The EC to such industries is granted as per the procedure laid down in the EIA, 2006 subject to environmental safeguards.” Despite recalling the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in ‘Consumer Education & Research Centre & Others vs. Union of India & Others – [1995 3 SCC 42], which was reiterated by the Court in Occupational Health and Safety Association (OHSA) vs. Union of India & Other [2014 4 SCR 10], he ignored the direction of the Court with regard to fresh resolution of International Labour Organisation (ILO). The specific direction reads: “The Union and the State Governments are directed to review the standards of permissible exposure limit value of fibre/cc in tune with the international standards reducing the permissible content as prayed in the writ petition referred to at the beginning. The review shall be continued after every 10 years and also as an when the I.L.O. gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or any Conventions”. ILO’s Resolution concerning asbestos aadopted by the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference, June 2006 reads: “The General Conference of the International Labour Organization, Considering that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (a joint Programme of the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme), Alarmed that an estimated 100,000 workers die every year from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, Deeply concerned that workers continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship-breaking and waste handling activities, Noting that it has taken three decades of efforts and the emergence of suitable alternatives for a comprehensive ban on the manufacturing and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to be adopted in a number of countries, Further noting that the objective of the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention 2006 is to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths,
1. Resolves that:
(a) the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths; and
(b) the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), should not be used to provide a justification for, or endorsement of, the continued use of asbestos.
2. Requests the Governing Body to direct the International Labour Office to:
(a) continue to encourage member States to ratify and give effect to the provisions of the Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162), and the Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139);
(b) promote the elimination of future use of all forms of asbestos and asbestos containing materials in all member States;
(c) promote the identification and proper management of all forms of asbestos currently in place;
(d) encourage and assist member States to include measures in their national programmes on occupational safety and health to protect workers from exposure to asbestos; and
(e) transmit this resolution to all member States.”
Disregarding Supreme Court’s directions, the union environment minister has ignored the recommendations of the Chemical Review Committee of the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade which has recommended listing of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list. In his written reply, the minister also ignored ministry’s own Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health which reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out.” Notably, the minister reiterated government’s ban on grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases for asbestos mines. But the minister has failed to recognise the rationality of granting environmental clearance to asbestos based factories. It has not factored in the immorality of manufacturers who produce two kinds of products—asbestos-based products for Indian market and asbestos-free products for external market as if Indians are sub-humans. The environment ministry is not drawing lessons from the steps taken by railway ministry to make Indian railways free from asbestos cement roofs.
A recent publication entitled "Global Asbestos Threat Persists Despite Widespread Bans and Mounting Evidence" points out that "Long after restrictions and regulations have taken hold in dozens of countries, legacy asbestos continues to expose workers and communities to preventable health risks." It states that "While many alternatives exist, replacing asbestos can involve cost and new safety evaluations. In some cases, substitutes must be as reliable as the asbestos materials they replace. Technical and economic support may be required for a smooth transition in industries that historically relied on asbestos." The details regarding "Common Asbestos-Containing Products and Safer Substitutes" is available.
The continued import and manufacturing of asbestos based products including white chrysotile asbestos based products is unscientific, anti-public health, anti-environment and indefensible. Unlike the mines ministry, railway ministry and education ministry, ministries of commerce, finance, chemicals, environment and consumers and almost all the state governments are complicit in the continued procurement and use of carcinogenic asbestos feigning ignorance about unfolding public health disaster.
