Home / Business and Economy / Piramal Pharma Plant Shutdown Over Waste Dumping Allegations
Piramal Pharma Plant Shutdown Over Waste Dumping Allegations
9 Feb
Summary
- Supreme Court directed pollution control board to decide Piramal Pharma's plea within a week.
- Allegations involve dumping hazardous waste into a water body near the Narmada river.
- Piramal Pharma denies wrongdoing, blames a third-party transporter for alleged violations.

The Supreme Court addressed Piramal Pharma's petition concerning the closure of its Dahej manufacturing facility. A bench, including Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, noted that Piramal Pharma had submitted a representation to the pollution control board on February 5, seeking to revoke a February 3 closure order. The court declined to grant interim relief, citing serious allegations of hazardous waste being dumped into a water body linked to the Narmada river.
The court directed the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) to decide Piramal Pharma's representation within one week, ensuring the company is heard. Additionally, Piramal Pharma is permitted to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which is expected to adjudicate the matter swiftly, preferably within two weeks.
The controversy arose following allegations that a tanker from Piramal Pharma's Dahej plant, carrying spent hydrochloric acid on January 30, 2026, deviated from its authorized route to a waste treatment unit. Villagers reported the tanker dumping chemical waste into a canal in Gandhinagar district on January 31, 2026.
Based on local complaints and surveillance data, the GPCB held Piramal Pharma accountable, issuing a show-cause notice and ordering the plant's immediate closure on February 3. This order mandated a complete shutdown of operations, including halting electricity and water supply, and prohibited the use of captive power. The company was also required to furnish a ₹15 lakh bank guarantee.
Piramal Pharma has refuted the accusations, attributing the alleged violation to a third-party transporter and presenting GPS tracking data to counter the GPCB's findings. The company argued that it was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case and that the closure was a disproportionate response.




