Daikin, Hitachi, Voltas sue Centre over its new e-waste recycling rules

Several electronics companies such as Daikin, Hitachi, Havells, and Voltas have moved a petition against the Centre between November and March, challenging the new pricing rules in its electronic-waste disposal policy.

 

Daikin, in its plea, has challenged Rule 4 of the E-Waste (Management) Amendment Rules, 2024, among others, which focuses on the establishment of platforms for trading Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) certificates.

 

An Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) certificate for e-waste is a mandatory document for producers (manufacturers, importers, and others) of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to demonstrate compliance with the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016. This certificate signifies that the producer is managing the end-of-life phase of their products in an environmentally sound manner.

 

Electronics companies have, however, said the cost they must pay to recyclers is too high.

 

In September last year, India set a floor price that electronics makers must pay recyclers. The government's new rules mandate a minimum payment of Rs 22 (25 US cents) per kilogram to recycle consumer electronics and Rs 34/kg for smartphones.

 

Makers of heavier devices such as air conditioners are likely to be hit hardest because their per-unit recycling cost has risen by a greater amount compared to makers of lighter gadgets like smartphones, media reports said.

 

Daikin, in its plea, said the amendments “are violative of Article 19(1)(g) as they infringe upon the commercial and private domain of the Petitioner (Daikin) and exercise the power of price-fixation in a private sphere.”

 

It said that the Centre “can exercise the power of price-fixation only to fulfil its responsibilities under the Directive Principles of State Policy, in the larger public good, and to aid the end consumer.”

 

“Till date, price fixation is only allowed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and can be done only in public interest. Any fixation of price between private players would amount to an unreasonable restriction on trade, which is beyond Article 19(2) read with Article 19(1)(g),” the plea said.

 

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution outlines reasonable restrictions that the state can impose on the fundamental right to practise any profession, occupation, trade, or business, as guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g).

 

“Therefore, the onerous obligation cast upon” the company by the Centre cannot amount to a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), the company said.

 

The company also said that the amendments by the Centre have been notified for an indefinite period, thereby causing immediate and indefinite adverse impact upon the trade and business activities of Daikin.

 

Sources said that though Samsung has not filed a petition in court yet, it has raised concerns about the said amendments. They also said the Centre is in the middle of negotiations with the companies.