1. Concept

Extended Producer Responsibility means the producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of its life-cycle. It is based on Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle.

Producer is not just manufacturer - under Indian law it includes:

• Producer - manufacturer of the product
• Importer
• Brand Owner (PIBOs)

EPR was first introduced in India in e-Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011. Now it is mandatory under:

• Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 amended 2022, 2024
• E-Waste Management Rules, 2022
• Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022
• Waste Tyre Rules, 2022 and Used Oil

2. What is EPR Fund?

EPR Fund is the financial mechanism to operationalize EPR. There are two dominant models recognized by MoEFCC's Uniform Framework for EPR, 2020 and Guidelines on EPR for Plastic Packaging, 2022:

A. Fee-based Model / Corpus Fund:
This is the true "EPR Fund". PIBOs pay a fee per tonne of plastic / e-waste / battery they introduce in market.

• Fee = Qty of packaging * Rate fixed by CPCB (e.g., for plastic: Rs. 5,000 - 20,000 per tonne depending on category)
• Fund is collected by CPCB / SPCBs or a Central Agency
• Managed by a State-Level Advisory Board or Central Fund
• Money is used to:
  1. Set up collection centres, Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
  2. Pay Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and waste pickers
  3. Create infrastructure for recycling
  4. Awareness and IEC activities

This was proposed in 2020 draft: Producers who cannot meet targets themselves can pay to escape physical responsibility.

B. PRO / Credit Model - Deemed Fund:
Most common in practice today. Instead of paying to Government, PIBOs must:

1. Register on CPCB EPR Portal
2. Meet annual targets: For plastic, from 2023-24 onwards 100% of eligible quantity
3. Buy EPR Certificates / Credits from registered Plastic Waste Processors (PWPs) or Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs)
4. If shortfall, pay Environmental Compensation (EC)

Environmental Compensation is treated as a penalty fund. Under NGT orders, this EC is deposited with CPCB and used to improve air quality and waste management in polluted areas.

C. E-Waste Fund Provision:
Under E-Waste Rules 2016, Rule 17: If producer fails to channelize e-waste, CPCB can levy Environmental Compensation and also require producer to deposit in Escrow Account / E-Waste Fund to be used for collection.

3. Structure of Fund under Plastic Rules 2022

Centralized online portal managed by CPCB. Four categories of plastic:

• Category I: Rigid Plastic
• Category II: Flexible, single-layer
• Category III: Multi-layered
• Category IV: Compostable plastic

PIBOs have 3 obligations: Reuse, Recycling, Use of recycled content, and End-of-life disposal.

If they fail:

• First violation: Rs. 5,000 per tonne
• Subsequent: Rs. 10,000-20,000 per tonne + EC
• Funds go to CPCB account.

4. Important Case Laws in India

A. Foundational Cases for Polluter Pays and EPR

1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281
First case where Supreme Court applied Polluter Pays Principle. Chemical companies in Bichhri, Rajasthan polluted groundwater. Court held industry must pay for remediation. This is considered the mother of EPR in India - recognized that producer must bear cost of waste.

2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
Supreme Court imported Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays as part of Indian environmental law. Held tanneries in Tamil Nadu must pay for ecological damage. Basis for all later EPR Rules.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Oleum Gas Leak Case (1987) 1 SCC 395
Evolved Absolute Liability and duty of State to protect environment. Court said fundamental duty under Art 51A(g) justifies stringent environmental regulations like EPR.

4. Toxics Link v. Union of India (2003) WP 657/1995
Mother case for e-waste. NGO Toxics Link filed PIL against dumping of e-waste. Supreme Court recognized e-waste as hazardous waste and directed MoEF to frame dedicated rules. Resulted in E-Waste Rules 2011.

5. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 679
Supreme Court laid down guidelines for MSW - door-to-door collection, segregation at source, scientific landfilling. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) also held ULBs have statutory duty, but they can recover costs from producers under EPR.

B. Direct EPR Enforcement Cases

6. Shailesh Singh v. State of UP & Ors, NGT Principal Bench 2018-2019
Landmark compliance case. NGT directed CPCB to take strict action against 20+ major producers including Apple, Samsung, HP who were operating without EPR Authorization. CPCB was told to shut non-compliant units and collect EC. This case established that EPR Authorization is mandatory precondition to operate.

7. Aryavart Foundation v. Union of India, NGT OA No. 936/2018 (2020)
Most cited for EPR Funds. NGT directed CPCB and SPCBs to ensure strict compliance with EPR targets, maintain real-time data on registration of producers, PROs, and process of treatment. Tribunal issued suo motu directions for Central EPR Fund and online trading of credits. It said state-wise compliance must be monitored.

8. Eco-watch India v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., NGT OA No. 56/2018
Petition regarding plastic waste management failure. Focus on HUL and other FMCGs failing to comply with EPR under PWM Rules 2016. NGT imposed environmental compensation and directed them to deposit amount in fund managed by CPCB for plastic waste management. The main point was firms weren't following EPR rules.

9. Central Pollution Control Board v. State of UP & Others - Plastic Ban Monitoring
NGT in 2022-23 orders held that unregistered PIBOs on CPCB portal are liable to pay EC of Rs. 10 lakh to 1 crore and that amount can be used by NGT to "improve air quality of NCR and other highly polluted areas". This order was later stayed by Supreme Court and is pending.

5. Current Issues with EPR Funds

1. Fund diversion: No clear audit of where EC money goes.
2. PROs becoming paper traders: Many PROs only trade certificates without ground collection.
3. Informal sector excluded: Waste pickers who actually collect 60% of plastic are not direct beneficiaries of fund.
4. Double counting: Same recycling credit sold to multiple producers.