.png){kind=small}
This timeline traces the history of Endosulfan—from its production in the 1950s to the deaths and chronic illnesses of thousands in India, and the scientific evidence and legal action that culminated in national and global bans. It also documents the illegal and unethical dumping of unused Endosulfan after the ban, and the ongoing citizen-led litigation before the National Green Tribunal as of 2025
Endosulfan was introduced to the global market in the 1950s by Farbwerke Hoechst, Frankfurt Germany, (Now Bayer) and the FMC Corporation, USA. Hoechst inherited the capacity to develop and patent endosulfan from IG Farben, the vast German chemical conglomerate dismantled by the Allied powers after World War II. Until the end of the 1970’s endosulfan was only produced by these two patent holders.
Around 1963–64, the Kerala Agriculture Department began planting cashew trees after clearing forests on the hills around Padre in Kasaragod district.
India imported endosulfan through the 1970s and into the early 1980s, before large-scale domestic production took off.
From 1976 onward, it was manufactured in India by three main producers: Excel Crop Care Ltd. in Bhavnagar (Gujarat), E.I.D. Parry (now Coromandel International Ltd.) in Thane (Maharashtra), and the public-sector company Hindustan Insecticides Limited (HIL) under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilisers.
HIL began manufacturing endosulfan at its Kochi plant in 1980, with a capacity of 1,600 tonnes per year. The plant’s toxic manufacturing waste was openly dumped, causing severe endosulfan contamination in the Periyar River in the 1990s and 2000s, which effectively became a sink for persistent toxic endosulfan waste.
In 1978, the Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK), a state-owned public sector enterprise, took over from Kerala Agriculture Department and began aerial spraying of endosulfan across its cashew estates in Kasaragod district of Kerala, The spraying was undertaken to control the tea mosquito bug and was carried out three times every year, continuing uninterrupted until 2001.
The Karnataka Cashew Development Corporation, under the Karnataka Forest Department, began aerial spraying of endosulfan across Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and Uttara Kannada districts from 1980s onwards till 2000. Newspaper notices were issued a few days in advance, warning that the spray was poisonous and directing people and livestock to stay away from the treated areas during spraying and for ten days afterward. Two such public notices are here and here.
The earliest media reporting on the impacts of endosulfan in Kasaragod appeared in 1979 through the work of Shri S. Shree Padre, a farmer-journalist from the village of Padre. In 1981, after four calves were born with additional and abnormal limbs, Shri Padre published a series of investigative articles, including in the Evidence Weekly magazine
By the early 1990s, severe congenital anomalies, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and developmental disorders had become increasingly common in Padre village. Dr. Y. S. Mohan Kumar, a physician who established his clinic in the area in 1982, began documenting these patterns through sustained clinical observation.
Collaborating with journalist Shri S. Shree Padre, who also suspected aerial endosulfan spraying as the underlying cause, Dr Mohan began holding public meetings and was harassed by the pesticide industry.While Shreepadre wrote to other journalists, Dr Kumar continued to write to the Medical fraternity, but received no response.
In 1998, Dr. Kumar referred affected villagers from Padre to Dr. Ravindranath Shanbhag of the Human Rights Protection Foundation (HRPF), Udupi, who subsequently initiated research on “endosulfan toxicity” in collaboration with the Pharmacology and Gynaecology Departments of Kasturba Medical College, Manipal.
Note: Mohan Kumar was later awarded
On October 18, 1998, Smt. Leela Kumari Amma—an agricultural officer from Pullur village whose job, ironically, was to promote pesticide use—filed a case in the Hosdurg Munsif Court seeking a halt to aerial spraying.
Leela Kumari Amma was herself a victim of endosulfan exposure; she had seen her brother die mysteriously and her children’s health deteriorate. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK) responded with threats, but she persisted.
On 21 Feb 2001, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) released its study titled “Analysis of Samples from Padre Village in Kasaragod District of Kerala for Endosulfan Residues.” The study tested water, soil, human blood and milk, and animal samples, and found high levels of endosulfan residues.
On 22 February 2001, Dr Ravindranath Shanbhag of the Human Rights Protection Foundation (HRPF) published an investigative article on the unfolding endosulfan tragedy in Kerala in the popular Kannada magazine Taranga. The article drew on studies and reports from around the world to show that endosulfan’s toxicity—and even deaths linked to aerial spraying—were already well documented, yet the government had allowed its use.
By April 2001, it was uncovered that the Karnataka Cashew Development Corporation (KCDC) was spraying the same pesticide around Dharmasthala in Dakshina Kannada. A rapid survey by HRPF in Kokkada, one of 30 plantation villages, found 13 affected children in a single day and 250 within a week, indicating near-universal household impact. Karnataka’s political response echoed Kerala’s—initial disbelief and denial.
Sometime in 2001, Kokkada resident and Endosulfan victim Sridhar Gowda formed a small committee with two other villagers to fight for the rights of affected people; a helipad used for aerial spraying lay just 200 metres from his home, and over the years he lost his vision, while his brother developed depression and his sister a uterine tumour
On 25 Aug 2001, the Government of Kerala issued orders suspending the use of endosulfan in all crops and plantations until further orders.
On 22 Mar 2002, under intense pressure from the pesticide industry the Kerala Government lifted the ban on endosulfan. Kerala’s health secretary, Mr K Ramamurthy, said the state government had no data indicating that the health effects are caused by endosulfan.
The decision was based on two studies—one by the Frederick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology (FIPPAT), Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, and another by the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU). Both studies were widely criticised as industry-aligned and methodologically weak, and their use to overturn the ban triggered sharp opposition from doctors, environmental groups, and affected communities.
On 15 Jul 2002, Down To Earth published “Endosulfan Conspiracy,” exposing collusion between the pesticide industry, government officials, and Kerala Agricultural University scientists to secure a clean chit for endosulfan. The KAU scientist who conducted residue tests later disowned the study, saying he handled only the initial analysis and did not know the source of the samples.
In Jul 2002, the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad, submitted an epidemiological study on school children from Padre village in Kasaragod district to the National Human Rights Commission.
The study found a significantly higher prevalence of neuro-behavioural disorders, congenital malformations in female subjects, and abnormalities of the male reproductive system among the exposed population. The report identified relatively high and continued exposure to endosulfan as the most probable cause of these health problems.
On 12 Aug 2002, the Kerala High Court passed an interim order banning the use of Endosulfan across the state, pending the outcome of the O. P. Dubey Committee.
The O.P Dubey Committee had been constituted earlier that year by the Insecticides Registration Committee. Its mandate was to examine the NIOH and Achyuthan Committee reports, along with the KAU and FIPPAT studies, conduct a safety assessment of Endosulfan, and recommend whether its use should continue, be restricted, or be banned.
The High Court was acting on two Public Interest Litigations filed by the Thiruvamkulam Nature Lovers Movement, the People’s Council for Social Justice, and the Samatha Law Society against PCK.
Upholding the precautionary principle and the right to life, the Court overrode the State Government’s controversial 22 Mar 2002 decision lifting the ban.
In Mar 2003, the O. P. The Dubey Committee submitted its report, concluding that there was “no link” between endosulfan use and the health problems in the affected villages—directly contradicting the findings of the NIOH study submitted the previous year. This conclusion effectively vindicated the pesticide industry at the time.
The report was met with sharp criticism from media, independent doctors, scientists, and affected communities, who rejected its findings as unscientific and disconnected from ground realities.
The Kerala High Court issues a final order banning endosulfan spraying permanently in the state
In 2004, the Union Government constituted Dr. C. D. Mayee Committee, which endorsed the discredited findings of the earlier O. P. Dubey Committee, further delaying regulatory action and reinforcing official denial.
Later that year, this denial was sharply challenged by the widely circulated critique “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics,” which exposed serious methodological flaws and the selective use of data in the Dubey–Mayee line of reasoning.
In 2004, Sridhar Gowda of Kokkada launched a postcard campaign demanding official recognition of the health crisis. In response, President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam ordered a District‑level survey in Dakshina Kannada, which found 251 affected people in Kokkada alone and another 180 victims in the neighbouring villages of Patrame and Nidle.
On 13 December 2005, the Union Ministry of Agriculture issued a Gazette notification restricting the use of Endosulfan in any form in the State of Kerala.
Between 2006 and 2009, pesticide manufacturers launched a systematic vilification and intimidation campaign against individuals and organisations working to secure the ban on Endosulfan. The manufacturers came together to form a not-for-profit body called the Centre for Environment and Agrochemicals (CEA), claiming to promote farmer welfare and the “judicious use” of pesticides.
The CEA, along with the Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI), issued legal notices to Sunita Narain, Dr. Aruna Dewan, and IIT-Kanpur scientists, distributed obscene and defamatory cartoons, and picketed the offices of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and Sunita Narain’s residence for over a month. The harassment escalated to false criminal cases and threats, continuing even after courts dismissed all charges as baseless.
This campaign laid bare the aggressive tactics used by the pesticide industry to suppress scientific evidence and discredit voices exposing the harm caused by Endosulfan.
The European Union nominated Endosulfan for inclusion under the Stockholm Convention, citing its persistence, bioaccumulation, high toxicity, and ability for long-range environmental transport.
India blocked the listing of Endosulfan under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention (adopted in 1998), an international treaty that seeks to minimise trade in hazardous chemicals through the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, which requires exporting countries to obtain the explicit consent of importing nations.
At that time, Endosulfan production had already ceased in Europe and the United States. Production was concentrated among a small number of companies in China, India, Republic of Korea, Israel and Brazil.
As India was a major producer and exporter of Endosulfan, it opposed the listing under the Rotterdam Convention.
In 2009, Yediyurappa announced a sum of ₹50 lakh to be released for disbursement of compensation to victims in the Beltangady taluk. Later that year, the amount was specified as ₹50,000 for each person suffering from endosulfan-related diseases in the affected taluks.
The Karnataka state government ordered its first official survey on Endosulfan exposure in 2010, identifying 231 victims from Belthangady and the neighbouring Puttur taluk in Dakshina Kannada.
Through Right to Information applications, activist Sanjeeva Kabaka of Puttur found that the Karnataka Cashew Development Corporation (KCDC) had aerially sprayed 32,604 litres of endosulfan between 1980 and 2000, with an additional 11,225 litres applied manually in the Belthangady–Puttur region.
India, which had first blocked the listing of Endosulfan in 2008, again opposed its inclusion in Mar 2010, despite mounting global concern over its health and environmental impacts.
At the time, global production of endosulfan was estimated at 18,000–20,000 tonnes per year, with 50–70% produced by Indian companies, an economic stake that strongly shaped India’s continued opposition to listing.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a nationwide phase-out and ban on Endosulfan, citing its severe risks to human health, farm workers, wildlife, and aquatic ecosystems.
HRPF, with the support of student volunteers, documented 8,500 endosulfan victims village-wise across Karnataka’s Western Ghats, covering Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and Uttara Kannada.
RTI applications filed by Sanjeeva Kabaka with the Karnataka Cashew Development Corporation (KCDC) disclosures revealed that endosulfan had been sprayed across more than 450 villages in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and Uttara Kannada over two decades.
Sustained pressure by HRPF on the Karnataka government led to the establishment of a day care centre for endosulfan victims in Kokkada village. However, the endosulfan pesticide lobby issued a legal notice that forced the government to remove the term ‘endosulfan victims’ from the centre’s name. This episode stands as a stark reminder of how corporate power is wielded to suppress public acknowledgment of harm and to erase such realities from public consciousness, let alone enable genuine corporate accountability.
At the national level, this silencing coincided with coordinated industry efforts to discredit scientific scrutiny and civil society advocacy. Excel Crop Care Ltd and the Endosulfan Manufacturers & Formulators Welfare Association (EMFWA) wrote to the Minister of Environment & Forests and the Prime Minister, alleging that CSE’s studies were influenced by European Union funding and that NGOs were promoting alternatives linked to European manufacturers.
On 17th Feb, The Karnataka government imposed an immediate 60-day ban on the use of the pesticide Endosulfan across the state.
Pesticide manufacturers called the ban “unscientific,” claiming there was no conclusive proof linking Endosulfan to health damage in Dakshina Kannada. On 18 February, the Endosulfan Manufacturers and Formulators Welfare Association (EMFWA) challenged the ban in the Karnataka High Court, terming the linkage “arbitrary” and “unconstitutional.”
In Jun 2011, Karnataka made a U-turn by voting against the ban at a meeting held at the office of the Agriculture Commissioner, where 21 states participated.
Endosulfan was listed under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention for global elimination, mandating a worldwide phase-out and total ban on production and use, following scientific reviews conducted between 2007 and 2011.
In 2011, Dr Vandana Shiva, Managing Trustee of the Navdanya Trust, visited Kasaragod for a seminar where Dr Ravindranath Shanbhag of HRPF presented detailed evidence of the endosulfan tragedy. Within days, she convened a national seminar at the India International Centre in New Delhi, bringing together leading scientists and legal experts, where Dr Shanbhag again laid out the findings.
Following this, the Navdanya Trust and the HRPF built the legal case and filed an intervention before the Supreme Court, with the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) as the main petitioner (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.213 OF 2011), seeking a nationwide ban on Endosulfan.
On 13 May 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed an interim order banning the production, distribution, and sale of Endosulfan across the country for eight weeks, pending submission of a joint committee report.
On 13 Dec 2011, the Supreme Court made the ban permanent. It also approved the three manufacturers—Hindustan Insecticides, Excel Crop Care, and Coromandel International— to export 2,698.056 kilolitres of Endosulfan formulation.
Pollution from Hindustan Insecticides: Kerala Pollution Control Board publicly stated that Hindustan Insecticides Ltd had not taken “adequate or earnest measures” to remove the Endosulfan waste that was being dumped in lagoons of the Kochi factory premises since 2006, despite repeated warnings.
Even after the Supreme Court imposed a nationwide ban on the production, distribution, and use of Endosulfan, the toxic sludge at the Kochi site remained, leaching into soil and Periyar river. Water-quality tests confirmed Endosulfan residues in the Periyar River.
On 23 April 2012, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union Government to submit a detailed report on the disposal and phase-out of endosulfan held by manufacturers, states, and formulators.
In compliance, the Ministry of Agriculture submitted its report on 12 July 2012, outlining the procedure for disposal of the remaining stocks of Endosulfan.
Despite this, Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK) dumped unused stock in open wells and was discovered later in 2013.
In June of 2013, Achuta Maniyani, a security guard of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK), disclosed that he had dumped unused stocks of Endosulfan into open wells at the Minchinapadavu Hillocks near the Nettinage–Mudnur gram panchayat on the Karnataka–Kerala border, acting on the instructions of PCK officials. The well was subsequently sealed with earth. When Dr Ravindranath Shanbhag of HRPF visited the site, he reported that the trees around the closed well were dead, indicating severe toxic contamination.
HRPF filed a PIL before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking urgent directions for comprehensive medical care, rehabilitation, and accountability for the victims of Endosulfan exposure.
In June–July 2013, Dr Ravindranath Shanbhag of the HRPF, along with local organisations in the Puttur region of Dakshina Kannada, facilitated prenatal scans for pregnant women in endosulfan-affected villages.
The aim was to ensure that foetal deformities could be identified by the 19th week of pregnancy and, where necessary, medical termination could be undertaken within the legal 20-week limit. This initiative was born out of frustration with years of governmental and judicial inaction.
However, within a week, the government directed that the programme be halted, citing concerns that it could be misused.
In 2014, the Karnataka High Court, through an interim order, in response to HRPF 2013 PIL directed the state government to assess the disability of every Endosulfan victim and provide compensation accordingly.
As per the order, children with more than 60% disability receive a lifelong monthly pension of ₹4,000, while those with less than 60% disability receive ₹2,000 per month. In addition, all victims are entitled to free medical treatment and monthly rations.
Despite court orders, compensation remains irregular and inadequate. Victims continue to suffer, many have died, and the struggle for justice and proper rehabilitation continues to this day (Jan 2026)
After a decade of official inaction following the 2013 Endosulfan dumping disclosure, Dr. Ravindranath Shanbhag of HRPF filed Original Application No. 186/2023 (Southern Zone) before the National Green Tribunal, seeking directions for the recovery and safe disposal of the illegally & irresponsibly dumped Endosulfan barrels.
Under NGT directions, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) conducts a spot inspection and confirms that there should have been 278 barrels of Endosulfan (200 litres each). CPCB was able to recover 20 barrels.
CPCB in its report dated 16 Jul 2025, submitted to the NGT, that a total of 69 barrels containing Endosulfan have been recovered and recommended their disposal through incineration.
The NGT directs Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. (PCK) to submit a comprehensive report on: the missing Endosulfan barrels, soil and water contamination at and around the dumping site, and the remedial measures required. All to be undertaken at the cost of PCK.
