See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307078024

E-waste Legislations in India— A Critical Review

Article  in  Management and Labour Studies · August 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0258042X16649466

CITATION READS

1 612

2 authors:

Harveen Kaur Sushma Goel

University of Delhi University of Delhi
27 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solid Waste Management View project

Swedish Waste Management System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harveen Kaur on 24 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

E-waste Legislations in India— Management and Labour Studies

41(1) 63–69
A Critical Review © 2016 XLRI Jamshedpur, School of
Business Management
& Human Resources
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0258042X16649466
Harveen Kaur1 http://mls.sagepub.com

Sushma Goel2

SE
Abstract
This article attempts to investigate policies, guidelines and rules concerning E-waste management in

U
India in last few years. It also critically reviews the existing E-waste legislations on E-waste management,
that is, E-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011, which were notified in 2012 by the Ministry of

L
Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Draft of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 which are

IA
yet to be notified. This article also highlights the E-waste scenario and recommendations for better
E-waste management in the country.
C
ER
Keywords
M

E-waste legislations, E-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011, Draft E-waste (Management)
M

Rules, 2015
O
C

Introduction
R
FO

E-waste has emerged as an important environmental concern in developing countries like India. India
produces nearly 12.5 lakhs MT of electronic waste every year. The top three cities generating E-waste in
India are Mumbai (96,000) followed by Delhi-NCR (67,000) and Bangalore (57,000). Other cities like
T

Chennai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Pune generates 47,000, 35,000, 26,000, 25,000 and
O

19,000 MT of E-waste per year respectively (Assocham Report, 2014).

N

The amount of E-waste is expected to grow to 49.8 MT by 2018, with an annual growth rate of 4 to
5 per cent (Baldé et al., 2015). As per Toxic links Report (2014), there are not enough collection centres
and a system in place with respect to taking back of electronic products after ‘end of life’ by the
manufactures of electronics and electrical equipment.

1
Research Scholar, Resource Management & Design Application Department (RMDA), Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi,
New Delhi, India
2
Associate Professor, Resource Management & Design Application Department (RMDA), Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi,
New Delhi, India

Corresponding author:
Harveen Kaur, Resource Management & Design Application Department (RMDA), Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi,
New Delhi, India.
E-mail: mlsmanager@xlri.ac.in
64 Management and Labour Studies 41(1)

Table 1. Global Generation of E-waste Quantity

Year E-waste Generated (MT) Population (billion) E-waste Generated (kg/in h.)
2010 33.8 6.8 5.0
2011 35.8 6.9 5.2
2012 37.8 6.9 5.4
2013 39.8 7.0 5.7
2014 41.8 7.1 5.9
2015 43.8 7.2 6.1
2016 45.7 7.3 6.3
2017 47.8 7.4 6.5
2018 49.8 7.4 6.7

SE
Source: Global E-waste Monitor, 2014.
Note: Data 2015 onwards are forecasts.

U
Table 1 clearly highlights the increase in generation of E-waste quantities over the years, that is, from

L
2011–2018 (however, data from 2015 onwards is only forecast). The table inferences the following:

IA
C
• The rate of E-waste generation is directly proportional to the increase in population.
• E-waste is directly linked to the economic growth of the country and also overall consumer
ER
spending and purchasing pattern.
• Changing lifestyle of people and urbanization, in recent times, has led to so much of growing
M

dependence on electronics.
M
O
C

Objectives
R

The study aims to achieve the following specific research objectives:

FO

• To investigate policies, guidelines and rules concerning E-waste management in India.

T

• To critically review the existing legislations on E-waste management, that is, to compare E-waste
O

(Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 with Draft E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015.
• To critique the new policy guidelines to manage E-waste.
N

Research Approach
The Draft document on E-waste Rules, 2015 has widened the scope of the existing E-waste (Management
& Handling) Rules, 2011 by including several major provisions. The former E-waste rules had several
limitations for stakeholders that prevented proper implementation of the rules. The new Draft on E-waste
Rules clearly lays down the responsibilities of various stakeholders with detailed specifications. The
inclusion of Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) is a welcome initiative in the draft rules.
However, whether the inclusion of PROs will change the existing scenario is still uncertain as such
models have worked well for developed countries where number of organizations come together to
implement the take back policy of E-waste which is financed by producers or manufacturers.
Kaur and Goel 65

This study was conducted to understand the legislative framework of E-waste management in India.
The study involved the collection of information from secondary sources like websites of the federal
Government, that is, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change (MoEF & CC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). In addition, informal
interviews were also conducted at Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Delhi which involved
discussions with Environmental Engineers and Additional Directors involved in formalization of Draft
E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015.

Regulatory Legislative Measures in India Regarding E-waste

The National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006 published by the Ministry of Environment, Forests

SE
and Climate Change emphasized the need for recovery and reuse of any material, thereby reducing the
waste destined for final disposal. Thus, it encouraged the use of waste as a resource. Focus of NEP

U
was to establish a system for collection of recyclable materials. Additionally, the NEP emphasized on
strengthening the informal sector by providing them with legal recognition, access to institutional finance

L
and relevant technologies so that they could be effectively involved in the mainstream activity of the

IA
recycling industry. In view of the inadequacy of some of the legislative and regulatory measures,

C
NEP provided for the formulation of new legislations and regulations to protect and safeguard the
ER
environmental health along with human health.
The Guidelines for environmentally sound management of E-waste, were released by C PCB on April
2008 which provided guidance for identification of various sources of E-waste and prescribed procedures
M

for handling of E-waste. These guidelines proposed the principles of producer responsibility and reduc-
M

tion of hazardous substances. It also promoted integration of informal sector in proper collection and
O

channelization of E-waste. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) also released guidelines for imple-
C

mentation of E-waste Rules, 2011, before E-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 were notified.
Considering the need for specific E-waste regulation, the Government of India, Ministry of
R

Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) notified the E-waste (Management and
FO

Handling) Rules, 2011 on May 2012 followed by Draft E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015.
T

E-waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011

O
N

• E-waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 were enforced on 1 May 2012.
• The rules are comprised of six chapters (definitions of various terms, responsibilities of stake-
holders, procedure for seeking authorization and registration, storage of E-waste, RoHS and
miscellaneous) three schedules and five forms.
• Responsibilities prescribe the duties to be performed by producer, consumer, bulk consumer,
collection center, dismantler, recycler and regulatory authority.
• The following activities are excluded from the ambit of this act:
○  Batteries as these were covered in the Batteries (Manufacture and Handling) Rules, 2001.
○ Micro as well as small enterprises (as defined in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006).
○ Radioactive waste as defined in the Atomic Energy Waste.
66 Management and Labour Studies 41(1)

Draft of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015

• Draft of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 have been proposed to fill the gaps in existing
rules.
• Some new stakeholders have been added to the new draft rules, for example, refurbishers,
dealers and producer responsibility organisations (PROs).
• The draft rules have also incorporated the Deposit Refund Scheme (in which a portion of the sale
price shall be retained by the producers and be refundable to consumers once the end-of-life
products are channelized according to the prescribed methods).
• The new rules have simplified the formalities regarding authorization and registration.
• The penal provisions are the same as the existing rules of 2011.

SE
U
Changes Incorporated in Draft of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015

L
Some highlights of comparison of existing E-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 with Draft

IA
of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 are mentioned in Table 2 below:

C
ER
Table 2. Comparison of E-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 and Draft of E-waste (Management)
Rules, 2015
M
M

S. No. Highlights Description

 1. Change in name of rules The Draft rules have omitted the word ‘handling’ from the existing
O

rules and it is therefore called as Draft E-waste (Management) Rules,

C

2015. Since, E-waste rules are drafted under EPA (Environment

Protection Act), it should include the term ‘handling’ in the title of
R

the act.
FO

 2. Application of rules In contrast to existing rules, the draft rules apply to some additional
stakeholders as well, for example, dealers, refurbishers and producer
responsibility organizations (PROs).
T

 3. Definitions Some new definitions have been introduced for certain key
O

words such as dealer, channalization, environmentally

N

sound management of E-waste, E-waste exchange,

extended producer responsibility (EPR)—authorization,
EPR management, producer responsible organizations,
refurbishment, state specific EPR planned white goods.
 4. Responsibilities of Responsibilities for some important stakeholders like manufacturer,
stakeholders dealers and refurbishers have been added for further clarity.
 5. Introduction of New set of responsibilities have been introduced for
Responsibilities producers, that is, for individual based producer responsibility,
for producers a producer may set up his own collection centers. In a collective
system, producers may tie up as a member with a producer
responsibility organization. Producers are also expected to create
awareness through means and mechanism available for their
consumers to return E-waste for recycling.
Kaur and Goel 67

S. No. Highlights Description

 6. Manufactures are now also Manufactures are now also responsible for collection of
responsible for collection E-waste generated during the manufacture of any electrical and
of E-waste electronic equipment and channelizing it for recycling or disposal.
They also have to obtain authorization from State Pollution Control
Boards (SPCBs). Also, they have to ensure that no damage is caused
to the environment during storage and transportation of E-waste.
 7. Elaborated procedure of Procedure for grant of authorization for producers has been
grant for producers elaborated and producers have to take EPR-Authorisation from
CPCB which will be valid for five years initially.
 8. Reduction in the use of Another addition is with respect to reduction in the use of
hazardous materials hazardous materials in the manufacture of electrical and

SE
electronic equipment and their components. CPCB shall
conduct random sampling of electrical and electronic equipment

U
placed in the market to monitor and verify the compliance of
Restriction of Hazardous Substances. Every producer shall provide

L
a declaration of conformance to the Restriction of Hazardous

IA
Substances provisions in the product user document.
 9. Introduction of financing and
organizing system C
Introduction of financing and organizing system to meet the
costs involved in the environmentally sound management of
ER
E-waste generated from the ‘end of life’ of its own products and
historical waste, that is, Deposit Refund Scheme wherein
M

a portion of sale price shall be retained by producer and shall

M

be refunded to the consumer once the end of life products is

channelized in the prescribed method.
O

10. No authorization required Collection centers are no more required to take any
C

by collection centers authorization from SPCBs. However, they have to ensure that
the facilities are in accordance with the standards or guidelines
R

prescribed by the CPCB from time to time.

FO

11. Introduction of Responsibility Dealers shall collect the E-waste by providing the consumer
of Dealers a box, bin or a demarcated area to deposit E-waste, or
through take back system on behalf of the producer; ensure that the
T

E-waste thus collected is safely transported back to the producer

O

or to registered collection centre as the case may be. They also

N

have to take registration on one time basis from SPCBs.

12. Introduction of Responsibility
of Refurbishers
13. Introduction of Responsibility
of consumer/bulk consumer
14. Addition of new codes for
electrical and electronic
equipment (EEE)
Source: E-waste Draft (Management) Rules, 2015; envfor.nic.in/
Refurbisher shall collect E-waste generated during the
process of refurbishing and channelize the waste to registered
collection center or dismantler or recycler. They also have to
undertake one time registration with SPCB and file annual returns to
the concerned SPCBs.
Consumer or Bulk Consumer are required to file annual return
to the concerned SPCBs.
Categories of electrical and electronic equipment covered
under the rules have new EEE codes for each electronic or
electrical item. However, no new EEE have been added to the
existing category.
68 Management and Labour Studies 41(1)

Table 3. Comparative Analysis of Legislations in India and Other Countries

S. No. Other Countries India

1. Developed countries hardly import E-waste
from other counties unlike India.
2. Developed countries have online centralized
system for management of E-waste.
3. Producers take the absolute responsibility of
end of life products, for example, Switzerland,
Spain and United Kingdom.
4. Penalties are stringent for violation.
5. Formal Sector is more active.
India imports E-waste from developed countries.
Developing countries like India lacks a centralized
system for management of E-waste.
Concept of EPR is still a controversial subject.
Rules don’t specify any stringent penalty.
In India, formal sector is less active as compared
to informal sector which is too large to tap.

SE
6. For most electronic products, there is a take Less or no take back schemes for electronic
back policy. items, for example, old refrigerators/AC’s/washing

U
machines.
7. Advanced recycling fee (ARF) is paid by consumers Consumers don’t want to bear cost of recycling

L
for home appliances such as in Japan under Japanese for end-of-life goods.

IA
Home Appliance Recycling Law (2001).
8. Recycling sector is highly active and well trained.
C
Most of the recyclers in India are not even trained
ER
for recycling E-waste. They seem to have moved
into this business because of profitability.
M

Source: Kaur and Goel (2016).

M

Conclusion
O
C

Although the draft of E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015, have broadened the scope of the existing
E-waste Rules by including several major provisions but as India is a huge country, setting up of a
R

collection mechanism in whole country and proper implementation of rules might take a few more years.
FO

If any of the producers will independently try to reach out throughout the country, it will not be
economically sustainable. So, a collective effort is required by all stakeholders to form a network across
T

the country. The role of government is crucial in networking all stakeholders together apart from framing
O

guidelines and rules. A comparative analysis of legislations in India and other countries has been
discussed in Table 3 below:
N

Some of the Recommendations are as follows

• List in schedule–I of draft E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 shall be broadened: For the time
to come, new items would be in market. So, there has to be a broader definition like ‘Any electrical
and electronic items/device/gadget/equipment working on electricity or on electro/magnetic
field’. This will incorporate all the waste falling under E-waste category.
• The definition for bulk consumer needs to be broadened: The rules only cover central government
or state government departments, public sector undertakings, banks, educational institutions,
multinational organizations, international agencies and private companies. It shall also include
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), service providers, service centers of electronics, hotels,
equipment leasing companies, etc.
 Kaur and Goel 69

• Criteria for setting up collection centers may be reconsidered: It can be in commercial/residential

areas, as E-waste is not hazardous (if it is in integrated form) like other hazardous waste. This will
make setting up of collection network easy and discourage informal sector.
• Collection centers must obtain authorization: They must be registered with concerned SPCB/
CPCB to carry out collection activity and shall tie up with authorized recyclers else it will encour-
age illegal dismantling and recycling by the unregistered dismantlers and recyclers. Furthermore,
the collection centres have not even been asked to submit annual returns as done in the case of
dealers or refurbishers of E-waste.
• No provision to impose financial penalty: There is no provision to impose penalty against the
defaulter of E-waste handlers/processors. Therefore, the rules should provide specific provisions
where the SPCB can impose financial penalties on such processors in case of repeated violations
of the provisions of the Rules. Under the Hazardous waste (Management, Handling and

SE
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, similar provisions have been made under section 25(2)
in which SPCB have been empowered to impose financial penalty with prior approval of

U
CPCB. Therefore, similar provisions can be incorporated in the proposed rules. However, it will

L
be better if SPCBs can impose the penalty of their own as it will avoid delays and help in effective

IA
compliance of the rules.
• Less clarity on ‘Deposit refund scheme’: There does not seem any detail on how this scheme
C
would be managed and if it’s not transparent—it is likely to be open for misuse. More details
ER
are needed on this scheme for its implementation and management.
M

References
M

Assocham Report. (2014). India’s capital produces 67,000 MT of electronic waste a year. Retrieved 15 December
O

2015, from http://assocham.org/newsdetail.php?id=4476

Baldé, C.P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R. & Huisman, J. (2015). The global E-waste monitor 2014. Germany: United Nations
C

University. Retrieved 20 November 2015, from http://i.unu.edu/media/unu.edu/news/52624/UNU-1stGlobal-

R

E-Waste-Monitor-2014-small.pdf
Kaur, H., & Goel, S. (2016). Handling and management of electronic waste: Review of global legislations. Retrieved
FO

2 March 2016, from http://www.ijrdet.com/files/Volume5Issue2/IJRDET_0216_01.pdf

Ministry of Environment, Forests and climate change. (2011). E-waste (Handling and Management) Rules, 2011.
T

Retrieved 25 December 2015, from envfor.nic.in/

O

———. (2015). Draft E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015. Retrieved 25 December 2015, from http://envfor.nic.in/
sites/default/files/notified %20ewaste%20rule% 20201510.pdf
N

Toxic Links Report (2014). Time to reboot. Retrieved 25 November 2015, from http://toxicslink.org/docs/Time-to-
Reboot.pdf

View publication stats