Pages

Sunday, August 8, 2021

National Green Tribunal Prohibits the Use of RO Water Purifiers - Upheld by Supreme Court

 Most of us use RO water as an abundant caution to protect ourselves from waterborne diseases. We ignore the fact that atleast 4 parts of water is needed to produce 1 part of RO water resulting in gross wastage of water. This wastage of potable water just for luxury/ status to a person is indeed criminal.

At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the groundwater is polluted, heavy, full of hazardous metals, and its consumption in raw form would result in a number of critical illness. The water of the rivers has also been contaminated due to discharge of untreated sewage  & industrial effluents directly in the rivers making the river water venomous & unfit for consumption. 

National Green Tribunal vide its order dated May 28, 2019, directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to issue by the year-end a notification banning RO purifiers where total dissolved solids (TDS) in water are below 500 milligrams per litre. 

A bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel granted more time to MoEF after it informed the tribunal that the exercise could not be completed due to coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The tribunal was hearing a plea filed by NGO Friends seeking conservation of potable water by preventing its wastage on account of unnecessary use of RO systems.

In a bid to regulate the use of RO purifiers, the NGT had directed the government to prohibit them where TDS is below 500 mg per litre and to sensitize the public about the ill-effects of demineralized water. The tribunal has also asked the government to make it mandatory to recover more than 60% water wherever RO is permitted across the country.

TDS is made up of inorganic salts as well as small amounts of organic matter. As per a WHO study, TDS levels below 300 mg per litre are considered to be excellent, while 900 mg per litre is said to be poor and above 1200 mg is unacceptable. Reverse Osmosis (RO) is a water treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force molecules through a semipermeable membrane.

The order had come after perusing an expert committee report which said that if TDS is less than 500 milligrams per litre, a RO system will not be useful but will result in removing important minerals as well as cause undue wastage of water.

Source 

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the Ministry of Environment to issue a notification by December 31, 2020, to ban use of all RO (Reverse Osmosis) Purifiers, wherein the TDS i.e. Total Dissolved Solids in the water is less than 500mg per litre of water. It is worth mentioning that according to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), the upper limit of TDS level in water is 500 ppm as against WHO guidelines for 300 ppm. The World Health Organization considers TDS  level less than 300 mg/litre as excellent, between 300 and 600 mg/liter as good, 600-900 as fair, 900 – 1200 as poor and TDS level above 1200 mg/liter as unacceptable.

Source

The NGT’s order prohibiting the use of RO water purifiers has given a severe jolt to the manufacturers. RO water purifiers have become an indispensable household item for any general Indian household today. The public to avoid consumption of polluted water and associated health benefits have been hugely investing in RO water purifiers. 

However, the NGT through its expert committee report has highlighted that RO water purifier system demineralizes water in areas where TDS in water is less than 500 milligram/ litre, thereby making it unhealthy for human consumption.

Aggrieved by NGT’s impugned order, the Water Quality Association of India i.e. manufacturers of RO purifiers had also approached the Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court directed the appellants to approach the Ministry and point out to the Ministry the material the appellants have in possession against the ban imposed by NGT prohibiting use of RO water purifiers in such areas.

Source

The Supreme Court has refused to stay the May 2019 order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that banned the use of reverse osmosis (RO) systems where drinking water supply had total dissolved solids (TDS) less than 500 mg per litre.

Hearing a petition filed by Water Quality India Association (WQIA), a body of RO companies on November 22, 2019, the court said that the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was already in consultation with it to implement the tribunal’s order. Therefore, whatever the association had to say, it should tell the ministry within ten days.

The NGT had passed the order on the basis of  a joint report submitted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (Neeri), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

The report had accused the RO companies of running a ‘misinformation campaign’ by claiming the technology can remove not just dissolved solids but all other impurities. The reality, the report said, is that RO is used worldwide only for desalination (treating dissolved solids).

Besides being a waste of resources, the NGT order had also noted that the use of RO technology was leading to wastage of water. The order had said that most RO systems recovered only 20 per cent water after treatment and the rest was wasted.

Source

Other than wasting too much water, RO systems, especially those that come without a TDS controller, often deprive drinking water of essential salts which are naturally present in the purest water found in nature and provide us with a wide variety of essential and trace minerals.

For example, if you install a RO water purifier in an area where the TDS level in water is say 400 mg/ltr, then after the RO purification process, the TDS in purified water will drop to 40 or 50 mg/liter. This is too low TDS and such water might be acidic in PH, taste bad, and maybe bad for health in the long term. It is therefore a good idea to ban RO water purifiers in areas where total dissolved solids (TDS) in the supplied water are below 500 mg per litre.

Source


Friday, August 28, 2020

COVID19 - Plight of the Junior Lawyers / Lawyers in General in India

India’s coronavirus lockdown is revealing deep income disparities in the legal profession.

As the CoronaVirus or Covid19 spreads its tentacles in the society and the nation, a class of people who have been hit very hard, rarely find a mention in the mainstream media.

This class of people belongs to the Noble Profession of Lawyering, and are referred to as "Lawyers" or "Advocates". Over 79% of lawyers with less than two years of experience earn less than ₹10,000 a month, according to a survey by think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

They are prohibited from seeking their livelihood, from all other means and occupations, except the Legal Profession (Lawyer-ing). They are prohibited from advertising about themselves, their skills, and their law practice in general.

This law, in the form of a binding directive, under Rule 36, Section IV,Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules prohibits lawyers from ‘the soliciting of work or advertising, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned’. It is important to note that BCI is the designated authority under Advocates Act, 1961 with the power to make delegated legislations (subsidiary legislations intended to implement the parent law, which, in this case is the Advocates Act, 1961). The proponents of this blanket ban mostly find themselves justifying this oddity under the garb of public policy, public utility, social justice and nobility of the profession along with the belief that the legal ‘industry’ will become fiercely competitive and money-oriented if advocates are allowed to advertise and solicit work. That being said, due credit should be bestowed upon the Indian justice system for acknowledging the nobility aspect of the legal profession. Even the Supreme Court has, time and again, sanctified the yardsticks of nobility and integrity as the pillars of the profession. (Source)

As per the common law principles, the legal system is expected to adapt to the changing needs of society. Thus, in 2008, on the petitioning of this very matter by an advocate, the Supreme Court, in V.B. Joshi v Union of India, relaxed the absolute prohibition on legal advertising.

However, the Supreme Court was rather hesitant in revoking the prohibition (as was petitioned in the case) and instead diluted the provision to the allow the display of the following information on online and offline platforms:

(1) name of the lawyer; and (2) address, telephone numbers and email id; and  (3) (a) enrollment number, (b) date of enrollment, (c) name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled, (d) name of the State Bar Council on whose roll name stands currently and (e) name of the Bar Association of which the advocate is a member; and (4) professional qualifications and academic qualifications; and (5) areas of practice.

Although the VB Joshi Case did relax the norms of legal advertising, it was too late and too little. In fact, Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has recently issued a contempt order on online portals like Justdial, Myadvo, Lawrato, Legalserviceindia among others which supposedly carry out advertising in the name of ‘enlisting’ in light of strict instructions from the high court to refrain from such activities.

While the law fraternity had been hoping for a progressive easing of the restrictions, the contrasting opinion pronounced by the court has created a sense of dismay and shock in the legal society.

On comparing ourselves with the other common law pioneers, we find that although the US and the UK did have an absolute prohibition on legal advertising till 1977 and 1990 respectively, both the countries revamped their internal regulations to adapt to the changing norms of globalisation and liberalisation. (source) 

In a historic move, an entire bench of the Supreme Court of India conducted its first ever paperless hearing on June 1, 2020. It was a rare sight as three judges sat in a virtual court, with laptops instead of bulky case files. Lawyers were seen giving presentations via video link, with the judges typing notes. However, with this new push toward virtual courts, there are also several structural challenges that have come to the fore. Many judges and lawyers feel that these need to be addressed as Indian courts traverse into the digital world.
On the other hand, several lawyers' bodies have written to the Chief Justice of India, calling for a return to physical courts. The Bar Council of India claims that 90% of lawyers and judges across the country are "unaware about the technology." Some lawyers are concerned about their livelihoods, claiming that virtual courts are currently accessible only to a few. (source)

The vast majority of lawyers depend on fresh filings and hearings for their income. With only urgent    matters listed, lawyers are finding it tough.
Mention lawyers and the image that strikes the public is that of famous names who move around in Audis and BMWs and charge massive amounts of money. But this section is a small fraction. The vast majority of lawyers, especially in the lower courts, function on a case-to-case basis for their income. And when the courts do not function, their economic situation becomes precarious. (source)

Patna civil court lawyer Abhishek said at least 95% lawyers at civil court are under financial stress. “Some of them can’t even meet their daily needs. They are part of justice delivery system. The high court should direct the state government to take steps to help these lawyers,” he said. The hearing at civil courts got crippled due to Covid-19 which directly affected practising lawyers. (source)


Last month, one Adv. K. Uthamakumaram found himself in the headlines last month when it was reported that the out-of-work Chennai lawyer was forced to weave baskets for a living. Earlier this month, Adv. Sapan Kumar Pal sold vegetables outside the Orissa High Court as a mark of protest after the state bar council allegedly delayed the release of promised financial assistance to lockdown-hit advocates. (source)  
Lawyers turn vegetable vendors, delivery boys to make up for lost income. As Aditya Kashyap sits by his vegetable cart in a bylane of Vasai, Mumbai, he tries not to think about five months ago when he was busy filing bail pleas in Magistrate Courts. (source)

 

Posted on 10th July 2020 is this Paper -  COVID-19 Epidemic: Indian Lawyers in Financial Crisis, Ignored, Depressed: In pursuit of Financial And Moral Support, by Chitranjali Negi Advocate Supreme Court of India, in which she says:

An advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. India ranks 68 out of 126 countries, down 3 places from last year in 2019 in “Rule of Law Index” which measures how the rule of law is experienced and perceived by the general public. The Indian Law profession is one of the largest in the world, with more than 2 million enrolled advocates Nationwide. The Nationwide lock down has brought to the fore the great disparity in the legal profession & lock down has financially damages lawyers. Lawyers in India are the most neglected and overlooked during COVID19 comparative of other professional. 70% Lawyers are almost daily wage workers who earn per appearance hearing. COVID-19 has impacted deep and triggered many social, mental and psychological issues as well.
The fundamental principle which determines the privileges and responsibilities of lawyer in relation to the court is that he is an officer to justice and a friend of the court. Lawyers status as an officer of justice does not mean he is subordinate to the judge. It only means that he is an integral part of the machinery for the administration of justice. (source)


In response to the current pandemic, which has already stirred havoc into the lives of advocates, various State Bar Councils (SBC) have initiated COVID-19 relief grant schemes on a first-come application basis, the grant criterion of which varies for each state institution. Some SBCs like Karnataka has released the list of beneficiaries but without the details of the relief amount granted, while others such as Rajsthan and Delhi have closed their application window without any intimation on future courses of action on the website.

Unless a person is tangibly benefitting from such schemes, there is really no direct way of knowing the procedure and result, as is. The inherent lack of transparency and absence of uniformity in the regulatory mechanism for advocates; and second, that the act of granting a measly Rs 5,000 to select advocates (the criterion and determination of which is also unknown) in hopes that this might help those individuals sail through a pandemic that has already put their lives at a standstill for over three months now. (Source)   

Framing rules and regulations to maintain the "Nobility of the Legal Profession" is easier than said, when it is not accompanied by the responsibility to support the members of the Legal Profession, in these hard times of Covid19, leave alone, equipping the Members with the benefit of a Continuing Legal Education.

Though the Central Government has announced that lawyers will come in the ambit of MSME loans, its is highly doubtful, if the Bankers recognise that lawyers are eligible for availing loans from Banks.


By the time the pandemic is over (??) most of the lawyers will be rendered indigent, and there will be no "nobility" left in the "Noble Profession", except for the top 10% creamy layer of lawyers.

Ref:
1. http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BCIRulesPartVonwards.pdf
2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66855607dba6b53432154
3. https://www.firstpost.com/india/hit-by-job-cuts-during-covid-19-and-constricted-by-an-outdated-law-on-legal-advertising-young-lawyers-struggle-to-become-self-reliant-8476201.html
4. https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume2/issue_1/interview_of_the_month.html
5. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/allahabad-hc-issues-contempt-notice-to-15-private-websites-for-advertising-about-practising-lawyers
6. https://www.firstpost.com/india/hit-by-job-cuts-during-covid-19-and-constricted-by-an-outdated-law-on-legal-advertising-young-lawyers-struggle-to-become-self-reliant-8476201.html
7. https://www.dw.com/en/how-coronavirus-is-propelling-the-rise-of-online-courts-in-india/a-53774109
8. https://scroll.in/article/958528/indias-coronavirus-lockdown-is-revealing-deep-income-disparities-in-the-legal-profession
9. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/covid-19-lawyers-find-it-tough-to-make-ends-meet/articleshow/76222390.cms
10. https://theprint.in/judiciary/loans-part-time-jobs-pm-cares-lawyers-grasp-at-straws-as-covid-leaves-them-out-of-work/463371/
11. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/lawyers-turn-vegetable-vendors-delivery-boys-to-make-up-for-lost-income/articleshow/77569538.cms
12. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3646300