# Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 493
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-12
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-asha-mishra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43452
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.S.G.I./2015/1786, Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, Shri Nisheeth Yadav, Shri Rahul Agrawal, Shri
Rakesh Mishra, Shri S.P. Shukla, Shri Shashi Nandan (for State/Union and respondents)

Public Interest Litigation -- Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation from Mobile Towers and Base
Transmitting Stations (BTSs) -- Petitioners sought restraint on installation of 4G networks citing adverse
health effects -- Held, electromagnetic radiation standards adopted by Government of India at 1/10th of
ICNIRP guidelines are sufficient safeguard; scientific consensus and regulatory framework do not support
allegations of health hazards; petitions dismissed. (Paras 1-40)

Statutory Regulatory Framework -- Mobile Tower Installation and Compliance -- Department of
Telecommunication (DOT) has established comprehensive regulatory regime including TERM Cell audits, selfcertification procedure, and radiation monitoring; all service providers required to comply with prescribed EMF
limits which are among world's strictest standards. (Paras A, B)

Expert Committee Report and Scientific Evidence -- Prof. Girish Kumar Report -- Committee constituted
by Court examined report citing health hazards and concluded that interpretations were scientifically unsound,
based on unjustified assumptions, and misrepresentation of international standards; WHO and international
agencies confirm absence of conclusive evidence establishing health consequences from prescribed EMF
levels. (Paras B, F-1)
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Precautionary Principle and Regulatory Adequacy -- Court held that precautionary approach has
already been adopted through adoption of 1/10th of ICNIRP limits; further reduction without conclusive
scientific evidence and international consensus would be inappropriate. (Para B-6)
Petition Dismissed -- Court upheld statutory framework and regulatory mechanisms; found no scientific
justification for restraint on tower installation; dismissed petitions with emphasis on established safety
protocols and monitoring procedures.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,871 of 87,909. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39871 for what follows._

4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
493
18. In view of the discussions held, no infirmity could be shown in the award of Labour
Court. Petitioner was merely a daily wager and had hardly worked for a period of a little over a
year. A period of nearly 26 years has expired. I find no infirmity in the award of Labour Court,
which may require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. The writ petition, accordingly, fails, and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.- 48084 Of 2015

Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Satyendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I./2015/1786, Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, Shri Nisheeth Yadav, Shri Rahul Agrawal, Shri
Rakesh Mishra, Shri S.P. Shukla, Shri Shashi Nandan (for State/Union and respondents)

Public Interest Litigation -- Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation from Mobile Towers and Base
Transmitting Stations (BTSs) -- Petitioners sought restraint on installation of 4G networks citing adverse
health effects -- Held, electromagnetic radiation standards adopted by Government of India at 1/10th of
ICNIRP guidelines are sufficient safeguard; scientific consensus and regulatory framework do not support
allegations of health hazards; petitions dismissed. (Paras 1-40)

Statutory Regulatory Framework -- Mobile Tower Installation and Compliance -- Department of
Telecommunication (DOT) has established comprehensive regulatory regime including TERM Cell audits, selfcertification procedure, and radiation monitoring; all service providers required to comply with prescribed EMF
limits which are among world's strictest standards. (Paras A, B)

Expert Committee Report and Scientific Evidence -- Prof. Girish Kumar Report -- Committee constituted
by Court examined report citing health hazards and concluded that interpretations were scientifically unsound,
based on unjustified assumptions, and misrepresentation of international standards; WHO and international
agencies confirm absence of conclusive evidence establishing health consequences from prescribed EMF
levels. (Paras B, F-1)
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Precautionary Principle and Regulatory Adequacy -- Court held that precautionary approach has
already been adopted through adoption of 1/10th of ICNIRP limits; further reduction without conclusive
scientific evidence and international consensus would be inappropriate. (Para B-6)
Petition Dismissed -- Court upheld statutory framework and regulatory mechanisms; found no scientific
justification for restraint on tower installation; dismissed petitions with emphasis on established safety
protocols and monitoring procedures.

List of Cases cited:

1. Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchyat, AIR 2007 Ker 33
2. Ujagar Singh and Ors Vs. State and Ors, AIR 2011 J & K 49
3. Muktipark Co-operative Society Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Special Civil Application No. 5548 of
2014
4. K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of
India, W.P. No. 24976 of 2008
5. Residents Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P. (C) 8661 Of 2015
6. Baldev & Others Vs. State of H.P. & Others, Writ Petition No. 5282 of 2014
7. Surinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Others, Writ Petition No. 4187 of 2015
8. Shriram Singh Jauharia Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (M/B) 11275 of 2010

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. This batch of writ petitions has sought a restraint on the installation of mobile towers and
4G base Transmitting Stations (BTS's) being established in different districts of the State. The
installations in question are part of a 4G network being laid in place by the seventh respondent.
The primary ground of challenge raised in these proceedings is based upon the alleged and
perceived ill effects of electromagnetic radiation generate by the BTS's and mobile towers on
human health. Placing reliance upon a report of one Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar, the petitioners
sought to highlight the adverse impact and the serious health risk likely to occur on account of
radiation from mobile towers and BTS's. Referring to the report of Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar, it was
contended that emissions from mobile towers and BTS's have a serious and irreversible impact on
the health and well being of individuals, resulting in neurological damage, impact on children and
women, impact on fertility rates in human beings, by the BTS's and mobile towers on human
health . Placing reliance upon a report of one Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar, the petitioners sought to
highlight the adverse impact and the serious health risk likely to occur on account of radiation
from mobile towers and BTS's. Referring to the report of Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar, it was
contended that emissions from mobile towers and BTS's have a serious and irreversible impact on
the health and well being of individuals, resulting in neurological damage, impact on children and
women, impact on fertility rates in human beings, lead to skin and ear damage and also effect
vision. It was further contended that mobile towers as well as BTSs should not be permitted to
be installed in densely populated areas, residential areas or in and around areas where mobile
towers and BTSs already existed. The petitioners place reliance upon a report drawn up by a
Parliamentary Standing Committee to contend that emissions from mobile towers and BTSs have
been recognized to have an adverse impact on public health and their installation should be banned.
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
495
The petitioners have also highlighted the absence of an effective grievance redressal and regulatory
mechanism to oversee the installation of these towers and prevent their mushrooming growth.

2. On 31 August 2015, the Court called upon both the Union and the State Governments to
file a response in these proceedings setting out the regulatory mechanism that may have
been put in place for monitoring the levels of radiation emitted by mobile towers. The order
further directed the Union and the State Governments to disclose on Affidavit all particulars
relating to the following important aspects:

(a) the process followed for grant of permissions or clearance for installation of
mobile towers;

(b) the permissible distance between mobile towers;

(c) restrictions, if any, on setting up of mobile towers in residential areas; and

(d) the authority designated to carry out checks and verify levels of radiation emitted
from such installation.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order both the State as well as the Union Governments
have filed their responses in these proceedings. By a subsequent order dated 6 January 2016, this
Court issued directions calling upon the Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Cell
(TERM Cell) to submit a report with regard to the possible ramifications of the installation of the
mobile towers and the BTSs by the seventh respondent. The Term Cell was required to submit
a report after considering all relevant aspects including the location, distance from existing towers
or cluster of towers and the extent of radiation from already existing towers. The Term
Cell was called upon to conduct a site inspection of all places which formed the subject matter of
this batch of writ petitions and file a report.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions the Term Cell carried out a site inspection of the
locations forming the subject matter of this batch of writ petitions and submitted its report on
Affidavit. The Affidavit found that in various places the installations of the seventh respondent
were yet to be completed and the towers were not energized or functional. It proceeded to record
the radiation levels at the proposed sites bearing in mind the emissions from nearby towers or
clusters of towers as the case may be. In all cases, the Term Cell reported that the radiation
level measured at the locations was far below the safe limit prescribed by the Department of
Telecommunication (DOT). It was on this state of the record that the petitions were set down for
hearing.

5. Upon a review of the material placed before us and the submissions advanced we find that
the following broad issues fall for our consideration: -
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
I. Whether the contention of the petitioners including those related to the
deleterious effect of EMF radiation upon human health and safety is liable to be sustained;

II. Whether the seventh respondent is in compliance with the statutory and
regulatory framework presently in vogue;

III. Whether the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 would be
justified in granting the reliefs as sought; and

IV. Further directions if any.

6. Before we proceed to elaborate upon the broad issues which arise for determination it
would be relevant to set out the backdrop against which the present controversy arises.

A.THE STATUTORY REGIME

7. The grant of licenses for establishment of a mobile network and connected aspects are
administered and regulated by the DOT in the Union of India. The issue of fixation of standards,
monitoring of compliance and other allied aspects emanating from radiation emissions by mobile
towers and BTSs is laid down by DOT. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection Guidelines (ICNIRP), were adopted by the Union Government in
2008. ICNIRP Guidelines mandated that the exposure limit to electromagnetic radiation from
mobile towers and BTS's should be limited to 0.08 W/kb. The guidelines referred to above had
been recommended for adoption by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Consequent to the adoption of these
guidelines the licensing conditions of all telecom service providers in the country were amended
and measures were put in place requiring them to comply with the radiation norms as prescribed
by and under the ICNIRP guidelines. Subsequently and based upon the recommendations made
by an Inter Ministerial Committee constituted by the Union Government which examined the
issue of electromagnetic radiation a policy of abundant caution was adopted. On 30 December
2011, DOT enforced stricter norms providing for radiation from BTS's being limited to 1/10th of
the limits prescribed by the ICNIRP guidelines. These limits as they stand disclosed in the
Affidavit filed before us are as follows:

Frequency in MHz
Power density limit
900
0.45 watt/m2
1800
0.9 watt/m2
2100 and above
1 watt/m2
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
497

8. To ensure compliance of the standards, DOT, on 8 April 2010 directed all licensees to
comply with the reference limits/levels adopted by the Government of India in respect of EMF
radiation norms by way of a selfcertification procedure of their BTS's. DOT is also stated to have
thereafter constituted TERM Cells for different regions of the country and presently as per the
statutory and regulatory framework in place, service providers can energize their BTSs
commercially only after the self certification testing procedure is completed and a certificate in
respect thereof has been duly submitted to the TERM Cell.

9. In August 2013, DOT issued the "Advisory Guidelines for State Governments for Issue
of Clearance for Installation of Mobile Towers". These Guidelines dated 1 August 2013 have
been issued by DOT in supersession of all earlier guidelines and circulars issued on the subject.
Broadly, these guidelines envisage the service provider obtaining requisite permission for
installation of mobile towers and BTSs from the State in which the tower is being installed,
and from the local body within whose jurisdiction the tower is to be placed, prescribing audit
standard for TERM Cells relating to the placement and position of the proposed BTS's with
reference to existing towers and BTSs. This is apart from the clearance that the service provider is
obliged to obtain from the "Standing Advisory Committee for Frequency Allocations"
(SACFA). Some of the salient compliances which these guidelines require are:

(a) A SACFA clearance;

(b) Structural Stability Certificate;

(c) Clearance from the Fire Safety Department;

(d) Clearance and NOC from local bodies;

(e) Payment of regulatory fees

10. DOT apart from the above is also stated to have issued instructions to TERM Cells for
carrying out technical audits of BTS's and to measure periodically the radiation from the towers
which have come into commercial operation. For this purpose detailed guidelines have been
codified by the Telecommunication Engineering Center called the "Test Procedure for
Measurement of Electro Magnetic Fields From Base Station Antenna".

11. The State of U.P. has framed building byelaws with reference to the powers conferred
upon it by Section 57 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. As per the salient
features of these byelaws, permission is accorded to the service provider only upon him having
submitted a layout plan of the proposed tower prepared by an architect registered with the Council
of Architects along with a structural safety certificate. The service provider is required to obtain
an NOC from the Residents' Welfare Association and the byelaws strictly prohibit the installation
of such towers on buildings which have been illegally erected or are situate in narrow lanes. The
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
byelaws further require the service operator and the landlord of the premises to submit a
joint affidavit indemnifying against any human or property loss which may occur.

12. The Union Government in its Affidavit filed in these proceedings has further stated that
the Science and Engineering Research Board functioning under the aegis of the Department of
Science and Technology in the Union Government has constituted an Expert Committee/Task
Force on 4 September 2013 to evaluate and to carry out studies in respect of the possible impact
of Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) radiation exposure from mobile towers and handsets. The
Affidavit discloses that as may as nineteen research proposals have been initiated by this Task
Force in 2015. Dealing with the issue of distance the Union-respondents have submitted that
mobile towers and BTSs are an essential ingredient to providing seamless and uninterrupted
service. It has referred to the fact that the licensees are under an obligation to provide a
minimum of 90% coverage and ensure a high quality of service. It is submitted that in order to
maintain continuity of service, it is imperative that mobile towers be placed in all areas including
residential and commercial areas. It is their submission that the placement of these towers is itself
based upon a radio frequency network planning which maps out the various locations where these
towers are liable to be installed to ensure seamless uninterrupted service. It is bearing in
mind the above objective that DOT, they submit, does not place any limitation of a permissible
distance between towers. For the aforesaid reason also it is contended that there is no restriction on
the placement of these towers near schools, hospitals or residential areas. According to the
respondents, the prescription of adherence to a norm which is 1/10th of the safe limit prescribed by
ICNIRP is a sufficient safeguard against all perceived dangers to human health. They submitted
that even in the case of multiple sites or cluster of antennas installed in close proximity the overall
radiation limits are not permitted to exceed the exposure limits mandated by Department of
Telecommunication (DoT).

B.THE PROF. GIRISH KUMAR REPORT

13. On 10 January 2012, the Division Bench of the Court at Lucknow issued directions on
a public interest litigation to constitute an expert committee to consider the various issues
highlighted in the report of Prof. Girish Kumar. A thirteen member committee comprising of
members working in DOT, professors from the Indian Institutes of Technology at Kharagpur,
Kanpur, Delhi, Roorkee, Bombay, the Indian Council of Medical Research, Institute of
Toxicology Research, Department of Science and Technology Government of India came
to be constituted. This Committee submitted its findings in a Report dated 17 January 2014.
Some of the salient conclusions that were recorded in this Report are extracted below:
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
499
Sl.
Main issues brought out in the
petition- presented by Prof.
(Dr.) Girish Kumar
Details
of
deliberations
held
by
the
Committee
1
People living within 50-300
meter radius are more prone to
dangerous ill effects of EMR on
human health. There are some
evidence to this effect.

It
was
explained
to
the
Committee members by him that
if present ICNIRP guidelines are
followed
then
human
body
would
absorb
microwave
energy of 583.2 kw-sec which
would amount to keeping human
body in microwave oven for 19
minutes/day.

Further,
with
regard
to
Microwave Heating Concept,
4.2 KW of microwave power
raises temperature of 1 Litre
of water by 1 degree C in 1
second. In a microwave oven,
temperature of one
cup of
water increases from 30 degree
to 100 degree C in approx. 70
seconds
with
500
watt
of
microwave power. With 1W
power temperature will increase
by 1 degree C in 500 seconds.

Temperature
of
ear
lobes
increases by approx. 1 degree C
when cell phone is used for
approx. 20 minutes
Thermal effects of EMF radiations are explained
in this example as there is a comparison with
microwave heating. It has been assumed by Prof.
(Dr.) Girish Kumar that human body is a cylinder
of fluid and has no thermal regulation of its
own. Further, to understand the effect to EMF
radiation of human body, following factors need
to be considered:

(a) According the scientific data published in
reputed scientific journals, the Absorption cross-
section (ACS), which is defined as the ratio of
power absorbed to incident power density, of
human body to EMF radiation is between 0.2
to 0.3 within mobile frequency bands as it is
frequency dependent.

These values have been
determined by
considering that the human body is totally
immersed in a uniform EMF. Such a situation
can only be created in an isolated environment
like laboratory. For
an actual directional
exposure, the value of ACS will be even less.

(b) Human body is not homogeneous. It
consists of several layers like skin, tissue, fat,
muscle etc and different dielectric constants.

(c) Only about 20%-30% of the human body shall
be actually exposed to the directional beam of
EMF radiation from the BTS antenna. In his
computations, Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar has
assumed that the full EMF radiated power (at
peak traffic value) is falling on the human body
from all sides i.e. from every angle in 360°and
also from top and bottom as if live human being
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is kept in a reverberation chamber having EMF
radiation from all sides at peak values. He further
assumes that the entire electro-magnetic (E.M.)
power in the incident wave enters into the human
body which is not correct.
(d) BTS generally radiates at much lower power
than peak power.

(e) World Health Organisation (WHO) in its fact
sheet No. 193 of 2011 while describing
short-term health effects has mentioned that at
the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of
the energy is absorbed by the skin and other
superficial
tissues,
resulting
in
negligible
temperature rise in the brain or any other organ of
the body.

Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar has not taken these
factors into consideration in the calculations
given by him. Further, Prof. Girish Kumar has
also not taken into account a very important
factor,
i.e.,
the
self
thermo-regulatory
mechanism of the human body.

As for as thermal effects are concerned,
committee also noted that power density of the
Sun's radiation during day time is of the thermal
effects, the Committee notes the following:

The assumptions used by Prof. (Dr.) Girish
Kumar are hypothetical. Such assumption of a
person being close to and in front of very narrow
beam of antenna at that height in the air is
rhetorical and impractical. Further, there is no
scientific evidence available so far to prove that
the temperature of the human body steadily rises
by 2°F in one hour and 8°F in 4 hours and so on
inspite of self thermo regulation.

The rise in body temperature due to EMF
exposure depends upon whole-body SAR for
which the FCC limit for general public is 0.08
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
501
W/Kg. There are ample number of published
scientific studies which show that at these SAR
levels, the rise in body temperature is of the order
of 0.1 degree centigrade (0.18°F) for long
exposure times.

The thermal time constant and thermo-regulatory
mechanism of human body have been totally
ignored by Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar. Thus, the
calculation given by him has no scientific basis as
far as human body or living organisms are
concerned in real situations. The

factors
affecting the EMF exposure to human body
as deliberated in point 1 above also apply in this
case.

The sole criteria of safety is that with present
level of power radiated from antenna, the
radiation level at the location around the tower
where the people could be present should be
within the limits as prescribed by the DOT which
are already 1/10th of ICNIRP norms.

Conclusion:
The Committee has come to the conclusion
that Prof.(Dr.) Girish Kumar has made an
over
simplification
of
the
complex
phenomenon of human response to such
stimuli.

Such unfounded and hypothetical analysis is ill
conceived. This is complete misrepresentation
of actual position and shall create only
confusion, misperception and unfounded fear
in the minds of general public, which should be
avoided.
3
Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar while
quoting a newsletter published by
him (Sept-Oct,2013) has referred
to
Federal
Communications
Commission (FCC) guidelines of
USA.
According
to
his
interpretation
about
the
FCC
The
Committee
makes
the
following
observations:

a. FCC limits for occupational exposure to EMF
radiation for 300- 1500 MHz frequency are f/300
mwatt/cm2
with average measurement time of
6 minutes. Whereas for general population, EMF
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
guidelines, power density limits
from cell tower should be f/300
mw/cm2 for 6 minutes use and
f/1500 mw/cm2 for 30 minutes
use.

As per his interpretation, for 24
hour exposure (which is the case,
as
the
cell
tower
radiates
continuously)
FCC
guidelines
recommend exposure limit of 12.5
mw/m2. With regard to mobile
handset, India has adopted SAR
value 1.6 w/kg averaged over 1
gm of tissue which is same as
FCC guidelines.

Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar argued
and interpreted that use of mobile
phone only up to 6 minutes is
recommended by FCC but he has
found use of phone safe upto 10
to 30 minutes.

radiation exposure for 300- 1500 MHz frequency,
the FCC limits are f/1500 mwatt/cm2 with
average measurement time of 30 minutes. These
two limits are for different environments and
hence can not be compared.

b. While the FCC standard for radiation is f/1500
mwatt/cm2, when expressed in the unit of
watts/m2, this limit becomes f/150 watt/m2. This
is far relaxed than the limit of ICNIRP which is
f/200 watt/m2. The FCC limits are followed in
USA, Canada, and Japan besides few more
countries. India has adopted 1/10th of ICNIRP
norms which is more stringent and is f/2000
watt/m2.

c. While, measuring this parameter, the average
of 30 minutes of radiation is taken so as to avoid
any misreading due to instantaneous increase.
The contention of Prof. Girish Kumar that the
same limit, when averaged over 6 minutes,
becomes f/300 mw/cm2 is total misunderstanding
of the standard.

d.
Cell
towers
are
designed to
radiate
continuously
for
providing
reliable
and
continuous mobile phone service. The Committee
observed that this interpretation of Prof. (Dr.)
Girish Kumar, of reducing the radiated EMF
power from cell tower depending on period of
use, is baseless and hypothetical.

e. The Committee members explained that
duration of thirty minutes mentioned in FCC
guidelines is the duration of any sample over
which the measurement should be done and
average of the values gathered during these thirty
minutes should be taken as the value of EMF
radiation power density observed. The Committee
noted that the FCC guidelines are available in
public domain with the above explanation. These
guidelines (FCC No. OET 56) have also been
shared among all the members of the Committee.
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
503
(ANNEXUE-II) Further, averaging is used in
any measurement to avoid judgement on any
instantaneous observation. This is a very well
internationally established scientific procedure of
measurement.

f. The Committee further noted that in case of
ICNIRP guideline, power density is to be
averaged over any 6 minutes period for the
purpose of measurement of EMF radiation.
ICNIRP
guidelines
mentions
that
"for
frequencies between 100 Khz & 10GHz, seq (i.e.
power density) are to be averaged over any 6
minute period." This measurement standard
however does not mean that the radiation
exposure to the public has to be limited to only six
minute, as being made out in the meeting by
Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar.

g. It was opined by the Committee that as long as
the absolute prescribed limit of EMF radiation
power level is not exceeded,
duration of
exposure is not significant taking into account the
self thermal regulatory mechanism of the human
body. Rather, absolute prescribed limit of
EMF radiation power level are recommended by
the international bodies keeping in view the
continuous radiation from cell towers.

h. The limit of 6 minutes radiation at the
recommended power levels of EMF radiation by
FCC as deduced by Prof. Girish Kumar is
absolutely incorrect and gross misrepresentation
of the FCC recommendation. Similarly, the limits
deduced by him for 24 hours use is also utter
misrepresentation of the FCC standard.

i. In the context of 30 minutes average exposure,
FCC in their document No. OET Bulletin 56 has
clarified
that
"For
such
public
exposure
situations, the MPE (Maximum Permissible
Exposure) limits normally apply for continuous
exposure. In other words, as long as the absolute
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
limits are not exceeded, indefinite exposure is
allowed."

j. Same applies to the measurement of SAR values
for average 6 minutes and has no relation to the
duration of use of mobile phone by the people.

Conclusion:

The Committee after carefully deliberating all
the aspects concludes that the interpretations and
projections given by Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar
are absolutely incorrect and are complete
misrepresentation of the facts.

Further, it is also clear from above that the
prescribed norms for EMF radiation by
standards making bodies take into account the
continuous EMF radiation (24x7) emitted from
mobile towers and mobile phones (while in use).

A4

Biological effects or health effects? What is a
health hazard?

Biological effects are measurable responses to a
stimulus or to a change in the environment. These
changes are not necessarily harmful to your
health. For example, listening to music, reading a
book, eating an apple or playing tennis will
produce
a
range
of
biological
effects.
Nevertheless, none of these activities is expected
to
cause
health
effects.
The
body
has
sophisticated mechanisms to adjust to the many
and varied influences we encounter in our
environment. Ongoing change forms a normal
part of our lives. But, of course, the body does not
possess adequate compensation mechanisms for
all biological effects. Changes that are irreversible
and stress the system for long periods of time may
constitute a health hazard.

An adverse health effect causes detectable
impairment of the health of the exposed
individual or of his or her offspring; a biological
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
505

effect, on the other hand, may or may not result in
an adverse health effect.

It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields
above certain levels can trigger biological effects.
Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that
short-term exposure at the levels present in the
environment or in the home do not cause any
apparent detrimental effects. Exposures to higher
levels that might be harmful are restricted by
national and international guidelines. The current
debate is centered on whether long-term low level
exposure can evoke biological responses and
influence people's well-being.
.........
Conclusions from scientific research

In the area of biological effects and medical
applications
of
non-ionizing
radiation
approximately
25,000
articles
have
been
published over the past 30 years. Despite the
feeling of some people that more research needs
to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is
now more extensive than for most chemicals.
Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific
literature, the WHO concluded that current
evidence does not confirm the existence of any
health consequences from exposure to low level
electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in
knowledge about biological effects exist and
need further research.
......."

(Source: WHO website:

http://www.who.int/peh-

emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1. html)

Copy attached as Annexure-III

The Committee has noted that the claims made
by Prof.(Dr.) Girish Kumar on health effects of
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

of pregnancy. This has also been
brought out by him in his report
submitted to Secretary, DOT in
December 2010.
EMF radiation are not supported by any scientific
evidence Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar appears to
have heavily relied only on Bio-Initiative Report
2007 & 2012. This report is one of the extreme
view among thousands of studies on the subject
and does not provide any conclusive evidence.

The Committee noted that WHO, after studying
approximately 25,000 studies over past 30 years
has concluded that current evidence does not
confirm the existence of any health consequences
from exposure to EMF radiation.

WHO has concluded that considering the very
low exposure levels and research, there is no
convincing scientific evidence that the prescribed
EMF exposure from base station cause adverse
health effects.

As regards the health effect of radiation from
prolonged use of mobile phone, International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an
agency of WHO, has classified
radio frequency
electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to
humans (Group 2B), a category used when a
casual association is considered credible but when
chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out
with reasonable confidence.

WHO has further stated that a large number of
studies have been performed over the last two
decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a
potential health risk. To date, no adverse health
effects have been established as being caused by
mobile phone use.

The Committee also noted that in fact substances,
mixtures and exposure circumstances classified
by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) as 'Group 2B', inter-alia, include
coffee, Aloe vera (whole leaf extract), Pickled
vegetables (traditional in Asia), Talc-based body
powder etc. (source IARC Monographs).
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
507

However, more studies are underway at various
forums (National as well as International) to find
any conclusive evidence and direct correlation to
the harmful health effect from EMF radiation
from cell towers and mobile phones.

Committee has further noted that IARC and
WHO have classified the radio frequency
Committee
felt
that
such
selective
highlighting
of EMF radiation, as the only
environment factor, may cause unfounded fear
and scare among public and should be avoided
in the absence of any conclusive evidence.

Members have further questioned the assumption
of Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar that cancer can
develop during a short period of exposure to
EMF radiation to a new born baby during
pregnancy in 9 months time whereas as per the
present findings, latency period for developing
cancer in human being is 10-15 years.
Similarly assumptions of Prof. (Dr.) Girish
Kumar that brain tumor has developed during
4 months of exposure to EMF radiation is also
not acceptable as the latency period is much
higher.

Conclusion:

It is noted by the Committee that measured
EMF radiation power levels from cell tower
have not been quoted by Prof. (Dr.) Girish
Kumar in this example while ignoring all other
factors which might be relevant. Also no peer
reviewed
conclusive
analysis
has
been
presented by him. This makes the case study
highly misleading and objectionable and at
best be termed as anecdotal.
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6.
International Exposure Standards
from some of the countries (about
12 only) was presented that the
radiation norms vary from 2w/m2
to as low as 0.00001w/m2
The examples taken by Prof.(Dr.) Girish Kumar
are from very few countries and some are the
examples of small local bodies/countries in
a country. These are isolated examples and as per
information available, these norms are not even
legally binding in some of these countries.

It is worthwhile to mention that most of the
countries in the world have adopted ICNIRP
limits. In fact WHO has recommended adoption
of International standards, namely, ICNIRP/IEEE.

Moreover, India is among the very few countries
who have adopted precautionary approach and
have adopted much lower norms than rest of the
world which is 1/10th of ICNIRP recommended
EMF radiation limit. India has adopted 1/10th of
ICNIRP limits as an abundant precaution.

Conclusion:

India's prescribed limits for radiation are
already much
lower than most of the
countries in the world. Therefore, there is no
need to further reduce the limits without
conclusive studies by International standards
bodies and India's own conclusive research
and findings.

 7.
Analysis of certain studies done
in few countries have been quoted
by Prof.(Dr.) Girish Kumar. These
include Spain, Israel, Germany,
Sweden, Brazil and India.
It is noted by the Committee
that only few
select studies, many of them possibly without any
peer review, have been picked in the example given
in the presentation by Prof. (Dr.) Girish Kumar,
simply to buttress his own point of view. Whereas
International Organisation like United Nation's
WHO conduct peer review of the independent
studies done by an individual or a country and
have taken into account approximately 25,000
studies over past 30 years from all over the world.

Conclusion:

The studies quoted by Prof. (Dr.) Girish
4 All. Smt. Asha Mishra & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
509

14. From a perusal of the aforesaid findings it is apparent that various aspects which were
highligted by Prof. Girish Kumar were considered in great detail by a team of experts which
ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the fear perception as raised
in his report. The Committee held was that there was a need for a continued research on the
subject of EMF radiation. However it categorically held that at present their was no scientific
evidence which may justify the perception of EMF radiation adversely effecting human health or
well being.

C.THE PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE

15. The Parliamentary Standing Committee delved upon various issues of concern such as
the structural safety norms, the ill effects of EMF radiation, the need for India specific research,
and the need for a continued monitoring of the issues pertaining safety and health. Upon the
submission of the Report by the Committee, the DOT submitted an Action Taken Report
and point wise response. We deem it apposite to extract some of the relevant parts of the same
hereunder:-

B. Issues related to health hazards from EMF Radiation and Need for India specific long
term Research

(Recommendation Sl. Nos. 6 & 9)

10.The Committee in its Original Report had recommended as under:-

"The Committee note with concern that the Government had not adopted or
prescribed any standards relating to safe exposure from electromagnetic radiations emitted by the
mobile towers as well as the mobile handsets and it was only in the year 2008 that the Department
of Telecommunications adopted the standards prescribed by the International Commission for
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) although the same were in existence since 1998.
These norms are a kind of international safety guidelines for RF exposure. Thereafter, based on the
growing media reports and increasing public concern on the possible health hazards of EMF
emission from antenna(e) of telecom towers/networks, an Inter- Ministerial Committee (IMC) was
constituted by the Government in August, 2010 to examine the effect of EMF Radiation from Base
Transmission Stations (BTSs) and mobile phones. Based on the recommendations of the IMC, in
respect of BTSs, exposure limit for Base Station Emissions was subsequently reduced to 1/10th of
the limits prescribed by ICNIRP with effect from 01.09.2012, which according to the various
Kumar, therefore, may be relevant for
conducting further peer review at international
level for appropriate correlation and can not
be relied upon at this stage without any
conclusive evidence.
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
memoranda received by the Committee has still failed to allay the fear amongst the public who
have cited various kinds of health hazards to human beings, animals, flora and fauna from the EMF
emission of telecom towers.

During the course of the examination of the subject, the Committee found two
contradictory views on ill effects of EMF emissions from telecom towers and mobile handsets on
humans and wildlife. The Committee note that on one side, various organizations/ stakeholders,
such as, Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India (AUSPI), Cellular Operators
Association of India (COAI), Reliance Communications Limited, Vodafone India Limited,
European Business Group etc., have denied the harmful effects of EMF radiations from mobile
towers and mobile handsets and also contended that sufficient precautionary measures have been
put in place. On the other side, various studies including Bioinitiative Report of 2012 have linked
several adverse health effects to electromagnetic fields from mobile tower and handsets including
effects on wildlife like birds, bats, honey bees, etc. Some of the health effects reported are effect on
cell growth, cell differentiation, DNA damage, altered immune system, hormonal effects, pervasive
impairment of metabolic and reproductive system, effect on fertility, reproduction and health of
off-springs, risk of glioma (a malignant brain tumour), sleep disorders, confusion, anxiety and
depression and appetite disturbance, etc.