Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs yet to recognize WTO’s asbestos decision is consistent with Indian Supreme Court’s decision

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 139^th 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 95^th 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.   

“Asbestos ban is a health imperative, not just a moral issue”: Jayant Chaudhary, Union Minister

Education ministry taking step towards making Indian schools asbestos free. 

In an interview with The Week, Jayant Chaudhary, the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, as well as Minister of State in the Education Department in the Government of India reveals the role of commerce ministry in making India asbestos free, now that 72 countries have banned cancerous asbestos of all kinds. WHO and ILO have recommended elimination of all types of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos. 

 

Like Indian Railway, Education Ministry paving the way for asbestos fee India, post ban on trade in asbestos waste (dust & fibers) and ban on mining of asbestos, environment ministry must stop grant of environmental clearance to asbestos plants. Health being a State subject under the Constitution of India, states too can ban manufacturing, procurement and use of  asbestos based products.   

 

COP-12 of Rotterdam Convention keeps inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III pending

Dinesh Runiwal who is a scientist in the Hazardous Substances Management Division in Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) is now a member of the UN's Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade  until April 30, 2028. This was communicated at the UN's Twelfth meeting of Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Rotterdam Convention in Geneva during 28 April–9 May 2025. He has replaced Amit Vashishtha, a scientist with the Hazardous Substances Management Division of MoEF&CC. 

 

Notably, Runiwal is the Member Secretary of the 14 member-Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry-1 Sector) under Environment Impact Assessment Division under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. This Committee undertakes appraisal of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. There appears to be a conflict-of-interest in his dual role. In his latter role he is part the Expert Appraisal Committee which grants environmental clearance to plants of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. In his former role he is part of the UN's Chemical Review Committee (CRC) which has recommended inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention which includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure.  Will it possible for Runiwal to do justice to both the roles? 

This is not the first instance of conflict-of-interest. Jagat Prakash Nadda, the union minister for Chemicals, which promotes trade in chemicals including asbestos is also the union minister for health which regulates chemicals including health impact of all kinds of asbestos. 

 

As a consequence, it seems National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad is not able to comply with one of the six directions of the Supreme Court in its judgement dated January 27, 1995.  The six directions are as under:

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 produce; (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 finding that all or any of them are 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."   

Recalling the significance of the judgement, Dr. Barry Castleman,the author of Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects said: "It is a tribute to public interest lawyer Rani Advani of the Consumer Education and Research Centre that the Indian Supreme Court issued such a thorough decision in 1995.  It is so disappointing that, 30 years later, India is the world's leading asbestos-using country and the judgment of the Court is disregarded by the Union government.  Many people are needlessly condemned to die for the rest of this century as buildings containing asbestos continue to be constructed.  This is a tragedy and a monstrous failure of the Indian political class."

He added: "A vicious combination of corruption (e.g., elected representatives holding financial interests in asbestos companies), bribery, and Russian trade barriers have enabled the continued global consumption of asbestos to remain at over one million tons a year.  This is down from almost 5 million t/y in the late 1970s and 2 million t/y in 1995.  The vast majority of this remaining market is in Asia."

But unmindful of the judicial decisions, the issue of chrysotile asbestos has eluded consensus for including it in the Annex III because it was recommended by the CRC for inclusion in February 2005 although COP has agreed that it meets all criteria for listing but has not yet reached consensus to include it  in Annex III. COP 3 (October 2006), COP 4 (October 2008), COP 5 (June 2011), COP 6 (May 2013), COP 7 (May 2015), COP 8 (May 2017), COP 9 (May 2019), COP 10 (June 2022) and COP 11 (May 2023) considered it for inclusion in Annex III but the Conference of the Parties (COP) has not yet been able to reach consensus.

The COP, at its 3rd meeting in 2006, adopted a decision on chrysotile asbestos, which, encouraged Parties to make use of all available information to make informed decisions regarding its import and management, and to inform other Parties of those decisions, using the information exchange provisions laid down in Article 14 of the Rotterdam Convention. COP3 also decided that the agenda for its next ordinary meeting shall include further consideration of a draft decision to amend Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos. COP4 adopted a decision on chrysotile asbestos deciding that the agenda for its next ordinary meeting shall include further consideration of a draft decision to amend Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos. COP5 was also not able to reach consensus and agreed to annex a draft decision to its report, which is set out in annex IV to the COP 5 report (document UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.5/26). COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP 10, and COP 11 decided to defer further consideration of the chemical to their corresponding subsequent meeting. The Secretariat of Rotterdam Convention publishes the information received from the Parties on chrysotile asbestos in the Appendix VI, Information exchange on chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review Committee for listing in Annex III but for which the Conference of the Parties is yet to take a final decision.

In the  MoEF&CC, Runiwal has been assigned the Chemical Safety and Overall coordination on the theme: Chemicals.
-The Manufacture Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989
-The Chemical Accident (Emergency Planning" Preparedness and Response) Rules; 1996
-Regulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Order, 2016
-GEF-UNIDO Project on PCBs
-GEF-UNIDO Project on DDT Draft notification on Classification, Packing and Labelling of Chemical Rules, 2011
-Regulation of Lead contents in Household and Decorative Paints Rules, 2016
-Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
-Minamata Convention on Mercury
-Strategic approach to international chemicals management (SAICM)
-GIS based Emergency Planning and Response System.
-Rotterdam Convention of Prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and Pesticides in international trade
-Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Notably, the list of hazardous chemicals under Part II of the Schedule I under The Manufacture Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 has 434 chemicals including asbestos. But since February 2005, government of India has been contending at the meetings of Rotterdam Convention that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical and resisting its inclusion in the Annexure III includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure! There are a total of 52 chemicals listed in Annex III, 35 pesticides (including 3 Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations (SHPF)), 16 industrial chemicals, and 1 chemical in both the pesticide and the industrial chemical categories.

ToxicsWatch Alliance welcomes nation-wide initiative “Asbestos-Free Schools: A National Priority” launched by Jayant Chaudhary, Union Minister for Education

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) wrote to Jayant Chaudhary, Union Minister for Education on April 4, 2025 on the subject of nation-wide initiative “Asbestos-Free Schools: A National Priority” for protecting the health of students, teachers, non-teaching staff and guardians. It has commended the minister's direction to ensure that “no asbestos be used in new or refurbished constructions at central government schools including KVs and JNVs.” Besides Kendriya Vidyalyas and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalyas, all the schools, colleges and universities including Sainik schools and military schools also await similar directions to safeguard the health of students, teachers, non-teaching staff and guardians. TWA has requested the minister to write to all the State Governments in order to urge them to take proactive steps to eliminate asbestos from their schools and private institutions ensuring a healthier, cancer-free future for the students to build safer asbestos free schools and educational institutions including Sainik schools and military schools and colleges. 

It has been estimated that one person dies from mesothelioma for every 170 tons of asbestos consumed. WHO estimates we have 107,000 deaths worldwide per year from occupational exposure to asbestos.If non occupational exposure is added it reaches a figure of about 120,000 deaths. Average world consumption/year 30-60 years ago was -- looks like3/2 of what it is now (2 million metric tons/year). Give India its share of that based on its share of global consumption. At 300,000 tons in 2013, that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of 120,000).  Asbestos diseases have a very long incubation period. So if you are exposed today to an asbestos fibre, you are likely to get the disease in next 10-35 years. Asbestos is like a time bomb to the lungs and Indians will suffer the most. If it is banned today that does not mean people will not suffer. Because of past usage people will continue to suffer from these diseases.

The experts who prepare the syllabus of the environmental studies subject must be persuaded to incorporate lessons from the 70 countries which have banned asbestos based products of all kinds. In the first phase the goal must be to eliminate use of chrysotile asbestos and record the number of exposed workers and consumers in the country. In the second phase, the goal must be to create incentives for the use of safer materials, ensure, create a registry of asbestos laden buildings and victims of asbestos-related diseases and ensure decontamination of the former and compensation for the latter. There is an immediate need to conduct an audit of the current status of the victims of asbestos related diseases from the government hospital records in the country and make it mandatory for medical colleges to provide training for doctors so that they can diagnose diseases caused by occupational, non-occupational and environmental exposures to killer fibers and substances.

Some typical asbestos-based materials include sound insulation infill, thermal insulation lagging, tape, rope, felts, blankets, mattresses, asbestos boards, gaskets and washers, drive belts/ conveyor belts, roofing sheets and slates, drain and flue pipes, rainwater goods, fascia boards, bath panels, ceiling tiles, toilet seats, cisterns, bitumen damp proof course, lining to walls, lab bench tops, extraction hoods and fume cupboards, brakes and clutches, cooling tower elements and others.

There is an urgent for creation of a register of all the asbestos laden educational institutions including schools, a decontamination plan and adoption of scientific and environmentally sound method of disposal of asbestos laden products including asbestos roof to ensure that the health of students, teachers, non-teaching staff and guardians are protected. A register of all the people exposed to asbestos (dust and fibers) and all the people suffering from asbestos related diseases must be prepared and a fund ought to be created to compensate the  victims.     

 

As per World Health Organisation (WHO), all kinds of  asbestos are a health hazard. It is banned in some 70 countries. In this regard WHO's Outline for the Development of National Programmes for Elimination of Asbestos Related Diseases merits your attention because it makes a case for stopping all asbestos based products to prevent the imminent public health crisis. It states "Exposure to asbestos causes a range of diseases, such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), as well as pleural plaques, thickening and effusions. There is also evidence that it causes laryngeal and possibly some other cancers.." (Reference: https://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/elim_asbestos_doc_en.pdf?ua=

 

1) The Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para 4.3.1) of Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change is also relevant. It reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”. 

(Reference: http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/visenvhealth.pdf)

 

There are fibre substitutes that have been evaluated by WHO are listed in the Summary Consensus Report of WHO Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes.

(Reference: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/summary_report.pdf)

 

In Ashis Mitra vs. The State of West Bengal & Others Calcutta High Court (2017) Writ Petition (Civil). No. 14729 (W) of 2016, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has recorded that “there is sufficient study material indicating that asbestos sheets used for roofing could cause cancer” and “various documents, issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), and other materials obtained from the Internet, that the exposure to asbestos including chrysotile causes lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.” It was contended by the petitioner that “the High Court should not continue to use these materials for roofing, especially after legislation in different parts of the world has been enacted on recognizing the potential health risk of asbestos to the citizens at large. Even in India several Acts recognized the fact that asbestos is a health-hazard.” Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s order on carcinogenic-asbestos that has been used for roofing in the Hon’ble Court’s main building, this is to draw your kind attention towards a serious unprecedented environmental and occupational health crisis with regard to the unnoticed epidemic of asbestos related diseases in our country in general. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty delivered the verdict observing, “The High Court main building is undergoing repairs with the assistance of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of West Bengal and other Authorities. When the entire renovation is undertaken, it is expected that the High Court and the PWD or, any other body entrusted with the renovation will ensure that the asbestos-sheets, which have been used for roofing, would be replaced by any other materials which are non-carcinogenic.”

In a related development, in January 2020, the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has said that no building, including madrasas, religious schools, and tutorials, in which children study should have an asbestos roof. In case any such building has an asbestos roof, the Local Self-government Department should not issue licence or building number to them, and should initiate action against them under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Municipalities Act. The commission order said asbestos was not conductive to the children’s health or comfortable environment in which they could study.It should not be used for school buildings and should be replaced urgently. (Reference: No asbestos roof for places where children study: panel, The Hindu, Thiruvanathapuram, January 04, 2020 https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/no-asbestos-roof-for-places-where-children-study-panel/article30473820.ece)

 

The recommendations of National Human Rights Commission in Case No: 693/30/97-98. Case No.693/30/97-98). The Commission recommended steps to "Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to inmates." 

 

Taking lessons from the industrial disaster of Bhopal, asbestos industry in Bengal should be made to pay heed to the way asbestos companies have gone bankrupt in the Western countries. They should be persuaded to join hands and create a compensation fund for victims. Dow Chemicals Company which refuses to own the liability for Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in India has owned the UCC’s asbestos related liabilities and announced a compensation fund of 2.2 billion dollars for the victims. In Europe, tycoons and ministers are facing criminal charges and imprisonment for their act of knowing subjecting unsuspecting people to killer fibers of asbestos. The future is no different for Indian culprits.

While India has banned mining of asbestos due deleterious impact on health, it is quite ironical that Union Government allows import of white chrysotile asbestos from countries like Russia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan and others. Government should not allow itself to be misled by asbestos producers like Russia in this regard now that Canada has rightly stopped mining of white chrysotile asbestos almost like India due its “deleterious” impact on health. Meanwhile, on 24 August, 2017, Constitutional Supreme Court of Brazil decided that the use of all kinds of asbestos is unconstitutional. The President of the Brazilian Supreme Court observed, “In concern of the environment, if any doubts, it must be prohibited so that the rights for us today and tomorrow won’t be lost for the ones that come after us”. It is significant because Brazil is one of the key suppliers of asbestos besides Russia, Kazakhstan and China.

The verdict of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court of February 17, 2015 has upheld a ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay ¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working for two decades about 200 meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing to protect workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture. (Reference:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/19/national/crime-legal/top-court-upholds-kubotas-liability-in-asbestos-death-case/#.VO3inSw8RkQ)

It is noteworthy that unlike India, Russia, Kazakhstan and China, Japan have banned asbestos of all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos. Nepal has become the first country in South Asia which has banned asbestos. Sri Lanka too had banned it but because of blackmail by Russia, it had to rescind its ban. It is relevant to recall that Indian Navy officials had rightly objected to presence of asbestos in Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov which was inducted into the Indian Navy as INS Vikramaditya after asbestos decontamination.

During Emergency, the ruling party and its acolytes had proposed to put opposition leaders in jails which had asbestos roofs. It is recorded in the report of Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by Justice J. C. Shah. We submit that Union of India’s Budget 2011-12 had made reference to asbestos related diseases by including it under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana to cover ‘unorganized sector workers in hazardous mining and associated industries like asbestos etc”. 

There is a need to announce the compensation package for present and future victims of asbestos diseases as it has done in the case of Silicosis and make the asbestos companies criminally liable for knowingly exposing citizens and consumers of asbestos products. The fact that every international health agency of repute including the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American Cancer Society agree there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reconfirmed that all commercial asbestos fibers - including chrysotile, the most commercially used form of asbestos - cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. In addition, IARC newly confirmed that there is sufficient evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer and reconfirmed asbestos causes laryngeal cancer. The WHO estimates that asbestos already claims 107,000 lives a year. Even that conservative estimate means every five minutes around the clock a person dies of asbestos related disease. The ongoing use of the asbestos fibre kills at least 300 people every day. World Bank's Asbestos Good Practice Guidelines. These Guidelines, as well as its earlier Environmental, Health & Safety General Guidelines, require that the use of asbestos must be avoided in new construction in projects funded by the World Bank around the world. The Guidelines also provide information on available safer alternatives to asbestos. Human biology is same everywhere if the asbestos is deemed hazardous in the developed countries; it must be deemed so across the country. In view of the incontrovertible adverse health effects asbestos based plants and products should be phased out to protect the lives of present and future generations. 

Asbestos related diseases are also incurable despite this environmental clearances are still being given by the central environment ministry but health being a state subject, your government can act to safeguard the life of present and future generations by stopping it. All the groups working on human rights, labour rights, health rights and environmental justice will appreciate if you can intervene urgently in the matter of incurable diseases caused by all kinds of asbestos including white chrysotile asbestos. In such a backdrop, government must be persuaded to stop manufacturing, procurement and use of all forms of asbestos.  

There is a compelling need to ensure that use of asbestos-cement roofs and other asbestos based products are prohibited for the prevention of preventable diseases and deaths in order to protect all the health of students, teachers, non-teaching staff, guardians, citizens, and tourists from the exposure of fibers of chrysotile asbestos.