The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking a uniform, eco-friendly disposal system for advocates’ bands, questioning the limits of judicial intervention. CJI Gavai’s sharp remark on “monitoring handkerchiefs” sparked debate on environmental responsibility within the legal profession.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking judicial directions to establish a uniform, eco-friendly system for the collection and disposal of used advocates’ bands across courts in the country.
The petition, filed by Sakshi Vijay, an Associate Professor at Jindal Global Law School, was rejected by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran.
ALSO READ: “Is This Some Fashion Parade Going On?” CJI Slammed Lawyer Without Neckband
While hearing the matter, the Bench declined to entertain the PIL, observing that the Court cannot step beyond reasonable limits in regulating everyday activities. CJI Gavai remarked:
“Where should our remit end then? Monitor how handkerchiefs be used? Or regulate garbage issue in villages? … Where all we should issue writs?”
The Court’s comments underscored the need to distinguish between issues requiring judicial intervention and matters better suited for administrative or legislative action.
The Petition
The petition noted the absence of any uniform policy for the dignified and environmentally responsible disposal of the white bands worn by advocates under the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. Vijay submitted that she found discarded synthetic bands strewn near garbage bins, footpaths, and even ditches outside court premises, reflecting both an environmental hazard and a matter of professional dignity.
According to the PIL, earlier generations of lawyers used reusable cotton bands. However, modern bands are commonly made of synthetic, non-biodegradable materials, cost as little as ₹10 per piece, and are frequently disposed of after a single use. The petitioner argued that thousands of such bands are thrown away daily, potentially taking over 200 years to decompose, contributing significantly to India’s textile waste and landfill load.
The PIL asserted that the unregulated disposal of used bands violated:
- Article 21 – Right to a clean and healthy environment
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Articles 48A and 51A(g) – Mandating the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment
The petitioner urged the Court to direct the BCI and concerned ministries to install “Band Disposal Bins” in all courts, and to develop a streamlined system for the collection, segregation, recycling, and repurposing of the material (such as using shredded bands as fillers for cushions and toys).
Supreme Court Declines to Issue Directions
Despite the environmental concerns raised, the Bench was not inclined to intervene. It dismissed the PIL, making it clear that not every administrative or logistical issue within the legal profession warrants judicial action.
Case Title:
Sakshi Vijay Vs Union of India
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Contempt of Court