Samsung, LG, Voltas and Others Move Court Against India’s New E-Waste Recycling Rules

According to Reuters, Several major electronics companies, both international and domestic, have launched legal challenges against India’s newly introduced e-waste recycling mandate. The policy, which seeks to formalise and regulate the country’s largely informal e-waste sector, has drawn criticism from industry giants who argue that the regulation imposes undue financial burdens without effectively addressing the root causes of recycling inefficiencies.

Companies Joining the Legal Battle

South Korean tech giants LG and Samsung have filed petitions before the Delhi High Court, contesting the e-waste regulation. They are joined by other manufacturers, including Daikin, Voltas (a Tata Group enterprise), Havells, and Blue Star. According to court submissions accessed by Reuters, the companies collectively argue that the regulation, while well-intentioned, places an inequitable burden on manufacturers without providing a comprehensive solution to existing systemic issues.

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the case on Tuesday, considering the various petitions collectively.

Understanding the Contested Regulation

The regulation in question forms a part of India’s broader e-waste management framework. It mandates that electronics manufacturers must pay a minimum of ₹22 (approximately 25 US cents) per kilogram to authorised recyclers for the proper disposal of electronic waste. The objective, as outlined by the government, is to incentivise formal investment in a sector predominantly controlled by unregistered scrap dealers, who reportedly handle around 80% of India’s e-waste.

Despite being the world’s third-largest generator of electronic waste, after China and the United States, official figures show that only 43% of India’s e-waste was recycled through formal channels in the previous year.

Key Arguments Raised by Manufacturers

In its detailed 550-page court submission, LG argues that the regulation unfairly shifts the burden of waste management onto manufacturers under the guise of the “polluter pays” principle. The company maintains that the core issue lies in the lack of effective enforcement against the informal sector, rather than the actions of legitimate manufacturers. LG further states, “If the authorities have not been able to regulate the informal sector, then it is an enforcement failure.”

Samsung, in its 345-page filing, echoes these concerns. The company asserts that the regulation does not inherently contribute to environmental protection goals and would result in significant financial strain for manufacturers. Samsung also highlighted that the mandated payout is “5–15 times” higher than prevailing market rates for recycling services.

Regulatory and Environmental Context

The Environment Ministry, which drafted the regulation, has yet to publicly comment on the legal proceedings. The broader context for the policy is India’s ambition to regulate its rapidly expanding e-waste footprint, encouraging investment in licensed recycling operations and reducing environmental degradation caused by improper disposal practices.

However, the industry’s collective resistance underlines the challenges governments face when trying to transition from informal economies to formal systems, especially in sectors where informal networks are deeply entrenched.

Conclusion

The legal dispute over India’s e-waste recycling regulation has opened a significant debate about the balance between environmental responsibility and economic feasibility. As the Delhi High Court prepares to hear the petitions, the outcome of this case could have important implications not only for the electronics industry but also for the future trajectory of India’s environmental regulatory framework.

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation/investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions. 

Investments in the securities market are subject to market risks, read all the related documents carefully before investing.