Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA) welcomes NGT’s Judgment Endorsing Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health for Phase Out of Asbestos and for adoption of its alternatives
NGT’s judgement on asbestos vindicates TWA’s complaint petition in NHRC
Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA), a member of the Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) and Indian Asbestos Victims Association (IAVA) welcome the 85-page long judgment dated October 30, 2025 which paves the way for making the country’ free from all kinds of cancerous asbestos mineral fibers. NGT has endorsed the Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health which aims to phase out asbestos and opt for its alternatives.
NGT has tasked all the Chief Secretaries of the States and Union Territories and Member Secretaries of State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees to ensure requisite compliance. The judgement is logical step in pursuance of Supreme Court’s landmark judgement on fundamental right to health in Consumer Education and Research Center & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (1995) 3 SCC 42. In one of its six directions, the Court had directed asbestos related rules shall be reviewed “after every 10 years and also as an when the I.L.O. gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or any Convention.” NGT’s judgement underlines that the resolution concerning asbestos adopted in June 2006 by the the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (I.L.O.) is mandatory.
The I.L.O. resolution states 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). It expressed its deep concern that workers continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship-breaking and waste handling activities, It noted that it took 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. It 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….”
The Action Taken Report (ATR) by all the States and Union Territories which is required to be submitted within one month next to the expiry of the period of six months before the Registrar General of NGT in view of the hazards associated with exposure to asbestos cement roofing sheets and other asbestos contained material, following directions for taking of following remedial measures for protecting workers, their family members/persons coming in contact with them, residents of the locality, occupants and users of the buildings with asbestos cement roofing and other asbestos contained material have legal compulsion to factor in the resolution of the I.L.O.
NGT’s judgement creates a compelling necessity to recognize that no public or private building in the country is asbestos free. Even the buildings of foreign embassies and consulates are either ridden with asbestos or asbestos-laden water supply pipes. NGT has recorded the fact that Union Ministry of External Affairs of India has informed the parliament that the Indian cultural centre in Washington DC was delayed due to asbestos problems in the building. It is high time a register of all the asbestos laden buildings is created besides a register of all the citizens who are either exposed to cancerous asbestos fibers or are suffering from asbestos related incurable diseases. A compensation fund is also required to compensate the victims of the asbestos related diseases.
Significantly, in the aftermath of the stoppage of the installation of some six asbestos factories in the state, Bihar’s chief minister had announced In the state assembly that no asbestos plants will be allowed to be set up in the state. The Chief Secretary of Bihar has also been sent the judgement of the NGT. At a Conference on Environmental and Occupational Health, Awadesh Narain Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council had favored phasing of hazardous factories in public interest if they cause incurable but preventable diseases. He said, "buying asbestos is buying akin to buying cancer. I will get asbestos removed from my residence." He added, "the ache of asbestos hazards is worse than the ache of unemployment."
Notably, Union ministry of commerce and industry and environment, forests and climate change have banned trade in asbestos (dust and fibers) in compliance with the UN's Basel Convention. The Union railway ministry has phased out asbestos roofs from all the 9274 railway stations. The Union education ministry has launched an asbestos free schools campaign. The Union Ministry of Defense has taken a position against induction of asbestos laden ships in the Indian Navy. The Union Ministry of Shipping is a signatory to the Convention of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) which forbids use of asbestos in ships. At a India-EU Seminar, the Union Labour Ministry had presented a concept paper disclosing that, “The Government of India is considering a ban on the mining and use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population”. The Union ministry of mines has already banned mining of all kinds of carcinogenic asbestos mineral fibers. Most recently, Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025 under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 asbestos as one of the 189 hazardous chemicals.
The NGT’s judgement and these Rules create a path for listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the Annex III of the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Its inclusion has been pending since 2006. Coincidentally, Dinesh Runiwal, a scientist in the Hazardous Substances Management Division in the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) is a member of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention until April 30, 2028.
NGT judgement refers to the order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), wherein TWA’s claim about 50,000 people dying in India every year on account of Asbestos related diseases, and its demand for a ban on asbestos usage is mentioned. The 85-page long judgement in Dr. Raja Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. mentions National Human Rights Commission on nine occasions and to NHRC on 4 occasions.
NGT has detected the error in NHRC’s order which was based solely on a conflict-of-interest study by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH). NGT refers to the case which was pursued by TWA in the National Human Rights Commission during June 21, 2011-August 8, 2016. TWA had “drawn attention of the Commission towards death of approximately 50000 people every year in the country due to Asbestos related cancer. He has alleged that white Asbestos is a fibrous material used for building roofs and walls and various in other forms. The complainant has sought Commission's intervention for a ban on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos(White Asbestos), which is hazardous for the health of people and causes various incurable diseases. Citing contradictory position of the Government on the issue, he has alleged that though the mining of Asbestos has technically banned by the government but it allows its import and that too from the countries which do not prefer its domestic use. The complainant has also requested for grant of a compensation package for present and future victims of Asbestos diseases.” NHRC had issued notice to the Secretaries of Ministries of Chemical Fertilisers, Environment and Forest, Health and Family Welfare, Industry and Commerce, Labour and Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories calling for a status report on the asbestos related issues on June 28, 2011. NHRC had sought additional from all of them in 2012, 2013, 2015 and in June 2016.
Prior to abrupt closure of the case without addressing all the prayers on August 8, 2016, NHRC had sought additional information as part of its 60 actions by NHRC through its communication dated June 30, 2016. The communication reads: “The Commission, in this case has been dealing with the issue of hazards posed by Chrysolite Asbestos (white asbestos) which is said to be adversely affecting the health of people causing various incurable diseases including cancer. The issue was raised by Shri Gopal Krishna of Toxics Watch Alliance through his complaint dated 16.6.2011. In the course of inquiry, the Commission has obtained expert opinion from Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai which was forwarded by its Director vide letter dated 3.2.2015. The said expert opinion was forwarded to Asbestos Manufacturers Association for their comments. In response the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association vide their communication dated 29.6.2015 has refuted the contents of Tata Memorial Report. The complainant Toxics Watch Alliance has made further submission vide their letter dated Nil received on 16.3.2013, dated 17.5.2013, dated 4.7.2014 and dated 1.3.2015. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Cement Section) Government of India to whom notice was issued, has vide communication dated 26.3.2013, responded that the issue of banning chrysolite asbestos is being dealt with by Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals. Subsequently, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals vide letter dated 2.7.2013, has forwarded an office Memorandum dated 26.3.2013 in which the complaint of Toxics Watch Alliance has been examined and commented upon. It was stated that a study was commissioned on the subject through National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahemdabad. Further the report of NIOH was circulated to various stakeholders and agencies for their comments on the report, all of which were not received (page 825 vol. IV). It was stated that the comments received on the NIOH report from various Ministries/ Departments/ Stakeholders are being complied and considered for taking an appropriate stand in the matter. The Commission would now like to request the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals: a) To inform the Commission about the final view that has been taken by the Department on the issue of banning Chrysolite Asbestos based on the report of NIOH and the comments received from Stakeholders. b) To analyze the expert opinion of Tata Memorial Centre, comments of the Asbestos Cement Product Manufactures Association and also the submissions of the Toxics Watch Alliance, the complainant. c) To send a knowledgeable person to appear before the Commission on ________ at 1100 hrs. to explain the latest position of science and Ministry's view in the matter.”
This communication from NHRC did not disclose that the study which was ‘’commissioned on the subject through National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahemdabad” was co-sponsored by Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association, which made it a doctored study. This came to light through a reply under Right to Information Act and union government’s reply in the parliament. he government study on better working conditions in asbestos factories was partially funded by the asbestos industry itself.
The Indian ministry of chemicals had commissioned NIOH to conduct the study in 2004 in the light of the proposed inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list of the convention, which was recommended in 2005 and 2006. We learnt about it in February, 2008. The documents obtained by through the Right to Information Act revealed that the asbestos industry added Rs 16 lakh to the government's allocation of Rs 44 lakh for a study by the NIOH to "specifically indicate how technology has made working conditions (in asbestos factories) better." The Government conducted the study only to justify its position that asbestos does not pose an unmanageable risk. The industry is manufacturing science to back its pre-determined position. The industry was being consulted by the Government at every step and the study was presented at the meeting of the Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention in March 2008 to justify its third veto against the UN action on white asbestos. The minutes of the Review Committee dated December 19, 2006 reads: "The report will be finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry." Another meeting minutes dated April 18, 2007 reports that "...the results of the study which was underway could not be shared (with public) till the same was finalised." According to the documents, a letter from the department of chemicals and petrochemicals to the director of the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) in 2006 states that the study should include "generation of data, which would justify the safe standards of its usage as also the reasons/rationale justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)". The questionable scientific study that was finalized after discussion with the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest ridden and deserves to be retracted.
Besides the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, the other three respondents in the NGT case were: Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Union Ministry of Education and Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association (FCPMA). It is apparent that due to infamy and notoriety of the “Asbestos” name, Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association (ACPMA), a cartel of asbestos companies has re-named itself as Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association. Curiously, the association has registered itself as a non-profit entity.
.jpg)
Notably, the URLs of the press releases issued by NHRC with regard to the white chrysotile asbestos case have been disabled. The URL of Union Labour Ministry’s concept paper too has been disabled.
Not only that Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) persuaded Secretary, Health Chandigarh Administration to write to forward its letter to Director Principal, Government Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) and The Director, Health & Family Welfare, Union Territory of Chandigarh for circulation and for comments. The letter dated February 5, 2024 by the Secretary, Health, Chandigarh Administration reads:"Subject: NHRC Case No.2951/30/0/2011/UC Dated:1.7.2011 Enclosed please find herewith a copy of letter dated: 26.08.2013 received from Manohar Lal IAS (Retd.) Director General for the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association for sending the comments in the matter to this Administration." It added that it was "For circulation specially to the Deptt. of chest & T.B & Radiotherapy to the issued & after obtaining be forwarded to the quarter concerned if so agreed." Its copies were sent to the Head, Department of Pulmonary Medicine/Department of Radiotherapy, GMCH, Chandigarh, the Office Superintendent. (HA-II), GMCH, Chandigarh, the Law Officer, Legal Cell, GMCH, Chandigarh and the Computer Programmer, GMCH, Chandigarh. It stated that "A copy along with its enclosure is forwarded to the followings for information & necessary action at their end" and "They are requested to offer their comments to this effect at the earliest, so that the same may be transmitted to the quarter concerned."
Besides this Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association alias Fiber Cement Product Manufacturers Association had filed a case against NHRC and ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) in the Delhi High Court to get itself impleaded in the NHRC case filed by TWA.
A 2-page long letter dated August 26, 2013 by Manohar Lal, IAS (Retd.), Director, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (Registered under Indian Societies Act, 1860) was sent to the K.K. Sharma IAS, Advisor Chandigarh Administration regarding "NHRC case no. 2951/30/0/2011/UC dated 1.7.2011 and "Your letter no, 2272-F 11 (6) 2011 dated 17.11. 2011". It reads: "Kindly refer to your above mentioned letter vide which the Chandigarh Administration had submitted the status report called by the NHRC regarding occurrence of asbestos etc., in the UT of Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Administration in their above reply has concluded, "........Hence use of white asbestos should also be completely banned in India also and the same may be replaced by some safe alternative material”. In fact had anyone made an effort tried to go through the literature/policy of the Government of India/ scientific and epidemiological studies by the National Institute of Occupation Health (NIOH) an Indian institute of international standing, the Chandigarh Administration would have never opined for even banning and never for completely banning the use of white asbestos. In June, 2011 one Mr. Gopal Krishna of ‘Toxics Watch Alliance (TWA) an anti-asbesios activist NGO filed a complaint with NHRC immediately prior to the meeting of the 3rd Conference of Parties (COP5) under the UN’s Rotterdam Conference. Jointly implemented by UNEP & FAO, the 1989 Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure programme has helped to ensure that governments have the information they need about hazardous chem for a assessing risks and taking informed decision on chemical imports. Any chemical to be brought under PIC procedure has to be by way of consensus alone of all the member countries. The anti-asbestos activists have been lobbying hard and working overtime to bring the white asbestos ( (chrysotile) used in the manufacture of asbestos cement roofing sheets (a.c. sheets) under the PIC list. Since its inception in 2004 the Rotterdam Convention, consensus has not been achieved for almost 10 years till now the 6th Conference of Parties (COP6) under the Rotterdam Convention held in May, 2013 in Geneva. Mr. Gopal Krishna of Toxics Watch in his complaint to, NHRC requested in June, 2011 immediately before the 5" conference of parties (COP5) which was held in June, 2011 in Geneva as under: 'in view of the above, it is your solemn duty of NHRC to protect Indian citizens from the exposure of fibres of chrysotile asbestos. In pursuance of the same as a first step there is a compelling reason for Government of India to support listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at tie 5‘ meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the Prior informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (20 to 24 June, 2011, Geneva)'. When Mr. Gopal Krishna mentioned above as the first step what he really meant was the beginning of the process of completely banning the white asbestos (chrysotile) used in India for manufacturing cement roofing sheets (a.c. sheets). But the facts and the evidence that white asbestos (chrysotile) is a health hazard or causes cancer of lungs is totally at variance to what Mr. Gopal Krishna a has argued in his complaint. And this will be amply clear after Going through the views/stand of ACPMA submitted to the Ministry of Environment and “Forests immediately prior to the meetings of the Conference of Parties (COP6) held under the Rotterdam Convention in April-May this year in Geneva. The stand of the delegation of the Government of India led by the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests in this conference in May this year inter-alia was as under: 'India did not support listing, citing the utility of the substance the finding of “no hazard” in domestic studies arid the increased trade costs cf the PIC procedure'. We have taken this opportunity to bring in your kind notice that the Chandigarh Administration has replied to the NHRC rather without going through the facts and certainly in our view detrimental to our industry. Therefore, it is requested that all these information and factual position be kept on record and also would appreciate if the Chandigarh Administration may like to review and revise their reply to NHRC. In any case the undersigned would be highly obliged if you kindly give an opportunity for a meeting with you to explain you the matter personally with still more literature so that the concerned department in the Chandigarh Administration has all the facts before replying such question in future."
The notice addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Union Territory of Chandigarh dated June 28, 2011 reads:" Shri Gopal Krishna of Toxics Watch Alliance, TWA in his complaint dated 16.6.2011 has drawn attention of the Commission towards death of approximately 50000 people every year in the country due to Asbestos related cancer. He has alleged that white Asbestos is a fibrous material used for building roofs and walls and various in other forms. The complainant has sought Commission's intervention for a ban on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos(White Asbestos), which is hazardous for the health of people and causes various incurable diseases. Citing contradictory position of the Government on the issue, he has alleged that though the mining of Asbestos has technically banned by the government but it allows its import and that too from the countries which do not prefer its domestic use. The complainant has also requested for grant of a compensation package for present and future victims of Asbestos diseases. Issue notice...."
Responding to the notice, in its reply on behalf of Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Administration categorically informed NHRC: “a. White Asbestos (Chrysotile Asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the following diseases:-Mesothelioma (Cancer of Pleura), Lung Cancer, Peritoneal Cancer, Asbestosis, And also consider as cause of following cancers:- Ovarian Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer, Other Cancer b. Diseases are produced in the person involved in Asbestos Industry.”
It stated that “No. of cancer deaths due to asbestos requires further large scale study from India”. It informed, “It is definitely harmful material, causing cancer and other related diseases.” It quoted from Pulmonary Medicine, “Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals exploited commercially for their desirable physical properties. However, it has been proved beyond doubt that Asbestos is hazardous to humans. White asbestos has been found to have causal relationship with various diseases like pulmonary asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma leading to deaths of thousands of people every year.” Considering the risk, its use has been banned more than 50 countries including Japan, European Union and Australia and efforts are being made for its prohibition in many countries. The reply concludes saying, “Hence, use of white asbestos should be completely banned in India also and the same may be replaced by some safe alternative material.”
In a separate reply dated June 6, 2012 Assistant Labour Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh has referred to para 16 of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated January 21, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 wherein directions of January 27, 1995 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 is required to be strictly adhered to. It further states, “In terms of the above judgement of this Court as well as reasons stated in this judgement, we hereby direct the Union of India and States to review safeguards in relation to primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos keeping in mind the information supplied by the respective States in furtherance to the earlier judgement as well as fresh resolution passed by the ILO. Upon such review, further directions, consistent with law, shall be issued within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order.”
The fact is that there is nothing on record to show that Chandigarh Administration has changed its conclusion sent to NHRC, wherein it asserted "........Hence use of white asbestos should also be completely banned in India also and the same may be replaced by some safe alternative material” but NHRC did not factor it in its order dated August 8, 2016.
So far it is clear that Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) alias Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers Association (FCPMA) has failed to exert its undue influence on Chandigarh Administration.
NHRC had also disregarded the reply of Piyush Singh Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand. In his reply dated May 29, 2012 to the NHRC, he enclosed a document Medline Plus Trusted Health Information for You, U.S. National Library of Medicine and the prescription of National Institutes of Health (NIH) highlighting the Treatment stating: “There is no cure. Stopping exposure to asbestos is essential. To ease symptoms, drainage, chest percussion and vibration can help remove fluids from the lungs. The doctor may prescribe earsol medication to thin lung fluids, People with the condition may need to receive oxygen by mask or by a plastic piece that fits into the nostrils. Certain patients may need a lung transplant”. This was submitted by J P Bhatt Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand on May 17, 2012 in the matter of NHRC Complaint Letter (Case No. 2951/30/02/2011) in the context of victims of diseases caused by Chrysotile Asbestos.
Disregarding scientific and medical evidence of public health hazard and its own order about the harmful effect of asbestos, NHRC refrained from prohibiting use of carcinogenic mineral fibers of white chrysotile asbestos using an irrelevant and an admittedly questionable study by NIOH. NHRC committed a grave error by merely reproducing the submission of one Assistant Industrial Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals as part of its “Directions”. By doing so, NHRC ignored its own order in Case No.693/30/97-98. In this case NHRC’s direction read: “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to inmates.” It is evident from it that the NHRC considered asbestos sheets as harmful but it allowed itself to be misled by a questionable study by NIOH.
Unlike NHRC, NGT drew on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement on fundamental right to health in Consumer Education and Research Center & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (1995) 3 SCC 42. The Court gave following directions:-
“31. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. All the industries are directed (1) To maintain and keep maintaining the health record of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from the beginning of the employment or 15 years after retirement or cessation of the employment whichever is later; (2) The Membrane Filter test, to detect asbestos fibre should be adopted by all the factories or establishments at par with the Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961; and Vienna Convention and Rules issued thereunder; (3) All the factories whether covered by the Employees State Insurance Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise are directed to compulsorily insure health coverage to every worker; (4) 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; (5) The Union and all the State Governments are directed to consider inclusion of such of those small scale factory or factories or industries to protect health hazards of the worker engaged in the manufacture of asbestos or its ancillary products; (6) The appropriate Inspector of Factories in particular of the State of Gujarat, is directed to send all the workers, examined by the concerned ESI hospital, for re-examination by the National Institute of Occupational Health to detect whether all or any of them are suffering from asbestosis. In case of the positive Ending that all or any of them ant suffering from the occupational health hazards, each such worker shall be entitled to compensation in a sum of rupees one lakh payable by the concerned factory or industry or establishment within a period of three months from the date of certification by the National Institute of Occupational Health.”
NHRC’s order was passed during the tenure of Justice H. L. Dattu as its 7th Chairperson who had joined the Commission in February 2016. The part heard case was decided in August 2016. Notably, NHRC took a total of 61 recorded actions in this case, out of which 58 actions were taken prior to the arrival of Justice Dattu. It seems unethical on his part to decide a part heard complaint without factoring in the submissions made by all the state governments and union territories and other union ministries, solely on the basis of the submission by Ministry of Chemicals and Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association which relied on a dubious NIOH study co-funded by them. Prior to him, the Commission headed by Justice K G Balakrishnan (7 June 2010-11 May 2015) and Justice Cyriac Joseph (11 May 2015-28 February 2016) had heard the issue of banning use of white asbestos and had taken 58 actions. There is a compelling need for the NHRC to adopt the long held norms of judicial discipline for cases which remain part heard by Courts. A paper entitled ‘Research on Chrysotile Asbestos: Failure of Ethics by National Institute of Occupational Health and National Human Rights Commission’ presented at the 14th World Congress of Bioethics And 7th National Bioethics Conference held at Bangalore in December 2018 provided detailed account of the unethical conduct of both these public institutions. NGT’s judgment has set the matter right after more than nine years.
