Aluminium Phosphide in Grain Storage: A Boon Marred by Illicit Household Use

“An AI-Enabled Review of Regulatory Gaps and Public-Safety Challenges.”

Aluminium phosphide is a highly effective fumigant used to protect stored grains, especially in warehouses and large-scale storage facilities. As a solution to food scarcity, it has proven invaluable. It leaves no harmful residues on the grains and poses minimal risk when used properly.

When exposed to moisture in the air, aluminium phosphide slowly releases phosphine gas at a controlled rate. Despite its widespread use, there have been no reported deaths from inhalation in storage environments.

In stark contrast, ingestion of aluminium phosphide is invariably lethal. Once it enters the acidic environment of the stomach, it causes a sudden and explosive release of phosphine gas, leading to death. There is no known antidote.

Unfortunately, its easy availability as a household fumigant has contributed to a significant number of impulsive suicides. Marketing aluminium phosphide for domestic grain preservation is prohibited. The legal implications of its illegal promotion are currently under examination, with assistance from artificial intelligence.

Q. Celphos – Aluminium Phosphide Poisoning Cases Reported?

AI: Reported Cases of Celphos (Aluminium Phosphide) Poisoning

Epidemiology and Mortality

Aluminium phosphide (AlP), marketed under names such as Celphos, Alphos, Quickphos, and Phostoxin, is a leading cause of fatal pesticide poisoning in rural Asia. Globally, pesticide ingestion accounts for an estimated 300,000 suicide deaths annually, with AlP a major contributor in India and surrounding countries. The fatal dose of AlP is as low as 0.15–0.5 g, and mortality rates range from 70% to nearly 100%, typically within 1–48 hours of ingestion.

Notable Case Reports

Below is a summary of single‐patient case reports highlighting the diversity of clinical presentations and outcomes:

Study (Citation)	Year	Location	Presentation	Key Findings
Alok Kumar et al.	2013	Rural Uttar Pradesh, India	Massive powder ingestion (≈15 g)	Survival attributed to immediate vomiting and prompt care
Modepalli et al.	2025	Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India	Two-tablet ingestion (6 g)	Emphasized 90–100% mortality; need for community education
Ram Babu et al. (JIACM)	2021	Delhi, India	Single 3 g tablet ingestion	Early, aggressive supportive therapy led to survival
Satish Kumar et al.	2023	Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India	Delayed ischemic stroke on day 3	Highlighted rare neurologic complication of AlP poisoning
Kandel et al.	2025	Banepa, Nepal	Single-tablet ingestion with aspiration pneumonia	Comprehensive ICU care enabled recovery

Geographic Distribution

• Northern and Central India report the highest incidence, particularly in agricultural districts where Celphos is readily available without restriction.
• Southern states of India also see frequent cases, though underreporting remains a concern.
• Neighboring Nepal records a growing number of cases, reflecting similar patterns of rural pesticide access and use in self-harm.

Trends and Regulatory Impact

First documented AlP poisoning in India dates to 1981; since then, incidence has risen steeply in rural areas due to accessibility, low cost, and lethality.
Stricter pesticide regulations introduced over the past decade correlate with a modest decline in availability, but Celphos remains in use, and case reports continue to accrue.
Recent emphasis on rapid decontamination, magnesium sulphate therapy, antioxidant use (e.g., glutathione, N-acetylcysteine), and advanced ICU support has slightly improved survival odds in specialized centers.

Key Takeaways

• AlP poisoning via Celphos is almost invariably suicidal and carries a very high case fatality without immediate, aggressive management.
• Single‐patient case reports underscore the critical importance of early gastric decontamination, supportive ICU care, and community education to reduce incidence and improve outcomes.
• Ongoing vigilance, tighter control on Celphos sales, and dissemination of treatment protocols are essential to curb morbidity and mortality.

Q. The licensing of aluminium phosphide (Celphos) was strictly for use of warehouse corporations. It was never permitted to be used as a household pesticide or for open sale. Is this not correct?

AI:

Licensing and Use Restrictions for Celphos (Aluminium Phosphide)

Celphos tablets are classified as a “restricted‐use” fumigant under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules, 1971. Their manufacture, sale, stock, transport, and application require:

• Accreditation by the Plant Protection Adviser (PPA), and
• Use exclusively by Government/Government undertakings (e.g., FCI, Central Warehousing Corporations) or by Pest Control Operators formally approved by the PPA.

Tablet Formulation vs. Pouch Formulation

Formulation	Approved Users	Sale/Distribution
Tablets (3 g)	Only accredited agencies under PPA supervision	Through verified fumigation agencies; no open or household sale
Pouches (10 g, 204 g)	End‐users holding a valid pesticide license (e.g., grain merchants, warehouses)	Free sale via licensed distributors/dealers

Celphos in pouch packs is explicitly approved for storage, transport, handling, and “free sale” to end-users who hold a valid pesticide licence. However, it remains prohibited for use in residential premises, cattle sheds, or as a general household pesticide.

Regulatory Framework

• The Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage accredits fumigation agencies and operators under the National Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (NSPM–22).
• State Governments issue licences for sale, stock, and use only after verifying PPA accreditation of the agency and operator.

In practice, any sale of Celphos tablets outside this tightly controlled chain (e.g., open retail sale to unlicensed households) would contravene both central rules and state-level licensing requirements.

Conclusion

Your understanding is partially correct:

• Celphos tablets are strictly limited to government/warehouse uses and accredited operators.
• Celphos pouches may be sold to licensed end-users (grain handlers, pest control professionals), but never as a domestic or open-household pesticide.

Q. It is strictly for licensed defined end-users. Pesticide shops cannot store or sell it to non-licensed individuals. As per the licensing stipulation, it cannot be sold to pesticide selling shops. Is it not the correct legal position?

AI:

Legal Position on Celphos (Aluminium Phosphide) Sales

Formulation-Specific Licensing

Formulation	Who May Stock and Sell	Who May Purchase
Tablets (3 g)	Only accredited fumigation agencies and operators approved by the Plant Protection Adviser	Government warehouses (FCI, CWC) and accredited Pest Control Operators only
Pouches (10 g, 204 g)	Licensed distributors/dealers holding a valid pesticide licence	End-users holding a valid pesticide licence (e.g., grain merchants, licensed operators)

Key Takeaways

• No pesticide shop—even if registered—may stock or sell tablets to any retail customer or unlicensed dealer.
• Pesticide shops with a valid dealer licence can stock and sell pouch packs, but only to end-users who themselves hold a valid pesticide licence.
• Sale to unlicensed individuals (households, small farmers without a licence) is expressly prohibited for both tablets and pouches.

In sum, your understanding is correct for tablets—these cannot enter general pesticide-shop channels. For pouch formulations, licensed shops may act as distributors, but they cannot sell to non-licensed persons.

Q. Its promotion as a household pesticide is responsible for its widespread clandestine open sale, which in turn is responsible for large-scale suicide deaths by this pesticide. Are not the manufacturers accountable and liable? There is a Dangerous Substances Act?

AI: > Legal Accountability of Manufacturers for Celphos Misuse

Regulatory Framework

Celphos (Aluminium Phosphide) is not governed by a standalone “Dangerous Substances Act” in India. Instead, its production, distribution, labeling, and promotion fall under multiple overlapping laws:

• Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules, 1971
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Hazardous Chemicals (Manufacture, Storage & Import) Rules, 1989
• Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
• Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly sections on negligent handling of poisons
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Insecticides Act: Misbranding & Unauthorized Promotion

• All technical literature, packaging, and advertising must carry warnings such as “Not for household use” and “For licensed users only.”
• Section 7 penalizes any person who manufactures, sells, or distributes a misbranded insecticide — up to Rs 20,000 fine and/or imprisonment.
• Promotion of Celphos as a “household pesticide” directly contravenes labeling and distribution norms and attracts prosecution.

Environment (Protection) Act & Hazardous Chemicals Rules

• Hazardous Chemicals Rules require a detailed safety data sheet, emergency response plan, and clear segregation of “industrial/warehouse use” from domestic applications.
• Any advertisement or brochure encouraging open-market or household usage breaches Rule 13 (“handling of hazardous substances”) and invites penalties (up to Rs 1 lakh or three years’ imprisonment).

Criminal Liability under IPC

• Section 284 IPC (“negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance”) punishes negligent actions that endanger life or safety.
• Section 287 IPC penalizes negligent use or management of any mechanically propelled vehicle or weapon — but courts have applied analogous reasoning to dangerous chemicals improperly promoted.

Civil & Consumer Remedies

• Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, end-users or victims’ families can sue for “defect in product” and “deficiency in service” where Celphos was marketed deceptively.
• Tort principles of negligence, strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher), and absolute liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) offer additional grounds for holding manufacturers financially accountable.

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

• Mandates that manufacturers of hazardous substances maintain insurance to cover third-party liability from accidental death or injury.
• Failure to procure or maintain such insurance can lead to further fines and invalidate statutory defenses.

Conclusion

Manufacturers and marketers of Celphos can indeed be held accountable — criminally and civilly — if they promote it for household or open-market use. Although India lacks a single “Dangerous Substances Act,” the combined force of the Insecticides Act, Environment (Protection) Act, IPC, Consumer Protection Act, and Public Liability Insurance Act creates a robust legal framework to prosecute and compensate victims of such misbranding and negligent promotion.

Q. Accidental, suicidal and homicidal deaths have been reported by Celphos (Aluminium phosphide). Under CRPC when the police investigates a death by poisoning, is it not their duty to try and trace the source of that poison for fixing criminal liability? Especially when the police recovers the empty Celphos package from the site of crime?

Duty of Police under CrPC to Trace the Source of Poison

When a death appears to be caused by poisoning—whether accidental, suicidal or homicidal—the Code of Criminal Procedure casts on the police a mandatory duty not only to record the facts of death but also to seize every piece of material evidence and to investigate its origin.

1. Inquest and Initial Inquiry (Section 174 CrPC) Section 174 CrPC requires that any death “under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence” must be inquired into immediately by the police officer-in-charge of the station. The officer must:
   • Visit the scene
   • Draw up a report describing injuries and any marks on the body
   • Forward that report to the Magistrate.
      
2. Seizure of Evidence (Sections 102, 165 & 161 CrPC)
   • Section 102: Empowers police to seize any property which they have “reason to believe” may furnish evidence of an offence. An empty Celphos packet is quintessential evidence, and must be seized, logged and sealed.
   • Section 165: If the poison (or its container) lies in a “closed place,” a search-warrant may be obtained to secure it.
   • Section 161: Allows police to examine witnesses and record their statements—crucial for tracing who bought or supplied the poison.
      
3. Tracing the Commercial Source Aluminum phosphide (Celphos) is a “restricted” insecticide under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Dealers must maintain statutory sale-registers (Form 23/25). Once an empty package is seized, the investigating officer should:
   • Obtain the dealer’s sales register
   • Note the batch number, date and purchaser’s identity
   • Follow the trail to pinpoint the supplier
   If the vendor cannot produce a licence or register, or if the purchase violates the Act’s conditions, criminal liability arises under both the Insecticides Act and the Indian Penal Code (e.g., Sections 269–271 IPC for negligent or malignant acts endangering life).
    
4. Completion of Investigation and Filing Report (Section 173 CrPC) After gathering all evidence—including the empty packet, forensic analysis report and supplier details—the police must:
   • Complete their investigation under Sections 157–158
   • Submit a written report (Final Form) to the Magistrate under Section 173

That report should chronicle efforts to trace the origin of the poison and recommend prosecution against anyone whose unlawful act or omission facilitated its misuse.

Proactive Next Steps

If the police fail to pursue the supplier, a relative or public‐spirited person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking an order directing the officer to complete the investigation properly.

For deeper insights, you may wish to explore:

• Model forms/registers under the Insecticides Rules, 1971
• Case law on vendor-liability for sale of restricted poisons
• Forensic protocols for phosphide poisoning analysis

Q. What is the relevance of M.C. Mehta vs. UOI judgment to Celphos deaths? Can it be invoked to fix liability of the manufacturer and the dealer?

AI: Relevance of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India to Celphos Deaths

When deaths arise from a hazardous product like Celphos (aluminium phosphide), the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (the “Oleum Gas Leak Case”) offers a potent doctrine—absolute liability—that can be invoked to secure compensation and fix responsibility, not only on end-users but upstream on both the manufacturer and the dealer.

1. Principle of Absolute Liability In M.C. Mehta, the Court departed from traditional “strict liability” (Rylands v. Fletcher) and held that any enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity bears absolute liability for harm, with no exceptions for “acts of God,” third-party sabotage or even statutory compliance. This doctrine is “non-delegable” and imposes a no-fault standard—if the activity poses a potential threat to life or health, the enterprise must compensate victims in full.
2. Celphos as a Hazardous Activity Manufacture and distribution of aluminium phosphide are squarely within the realm of inherently dangerous activities. Celphos releases lethal phosphine gas on contact with moisture, making any leak immediately life-threatening. Under the Insecticides Act, 1968, Celphos is a “restricted insecticide.” Dealers must maintain sale registers and manufacturers must secure licences, underscoring its regulated but perilous nature.
3. Extending Mehta’s Doctrine to Manufacturer Liability By analogy to Oleum-gas industries, a Celphos manufacturer can be treated as an “enterprise” whose product, if misused or defectively packaged, causes death. Courts can invoke absolute liability to:
   • Hold the manufacturer accountable for full compensation—no defence of due diligence or unforeseeable misuse will avail.
   • Impose an obligation to set up a Public Liability Insurance Fund (as later codified in the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991).
4. Fixing Dealer Liability Dealers occupy the critical link in the hazardous-product chain:
   • They must verify purchasers’ credentials and record batch-wise sales.
   • A failure in these statutory duties that leads to illicit access or overdose can attract absolute liability as an accessory “enterprise.”
   • Even absent a direct manufacturing role, a dealer’s defective packaging, mislabelling or unlawful sale invites the full force of Mehta’s no-fault liability.
5. Practical Invocation
   • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Victims or NGOs can invoke Article 32/226 to press the Court to apply absolute liability against both manufacturer and dealer.
   • District Court Suits: Under tort law, plaintiffs can claim “absolute liability” damages in civil courts, seeking exemplary and compensatory relief.
   • Regulatory Prosecutions: Simultaneous action under the Insecticides Act (for licence or register violations) and IPC Sections 269–271 (negligent or malignant acts endangering life) can be pursued.
6. Caveats and Complementary Routes
   • Criminal vs. Civil: Absolute liability secures civil compensation; criminal culpability for poisoning still requires proof of mens rea or negligence under IPC.
   • Insurance Cover: Under the Public Liability Insurance Act, a statutory insurance pool must exist to guarantee prompt victim relief.
   • Standard of Proof: While absolute liability dispenses with conventional defences, plaintiffs must establish causation between the Celphos (or its empty packet) and the death.

Conclusion

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India planted the seeds of a rigorous, no-escape liability regime for hazardous industries. By treating Celphos manufacture and distribution through the same lens, courts can compel manufacturers and dealers to shoulder the full burden of tragic poisonings—ensuring victims are compensated swiftly and comprehensively, and that public health trumps commercial convenience.

Q. Family members of a person who dies of Celphos poisoning – accidental, suicidal or homicidal – are entitled to claim compensation from the manufacturer and dealer?

AI:

Entitlement to Compensation: Family Members’ Civil and Statutory Remedies

When a death results from Celphos poisoning—whether accidental, suicidal or homicidal—next of kin have both common‐law and statutory avenues to seek compensation from upstream actors in the supply chain, namely the manufacturer and the dealer.

1. Civil Action in Tort – Absolute Liability Under the absolute liability principle (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), any enterprise engaged in an inherently dangerous activity (like producing or distributing aluminium phosphide) owes a no-fault duty to pay full compensation for harm. Families can file a civil suit for damages in the local civil court, claiming:
   • Loss of dependency (future earnings of the deceased)
   • Loss of consortium and funeral expenses
   • Exemplary damages, given the hazardous nature of the product
      
2. Statutory Insurance Cover – Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 Manufacturers and dealers of restricted poisons must carry public liability insurance covering third-party death or injury. Under Section 6 of the Act, family members can approach the Claims Commissioner (within one year of the incident) to claim compensation directly from the insurer—without proving negligence or fault by the manufacturer/dealer. This process is streamlined, fast-track, and does not bar concurrent civil suits for additional damages.
    
3. Breach of Statutory Duties – Insecticides Act, 1968 Dealers and manufacturers must comply with licence-and-register requirements when selling restricted insecticides. If a death arises from an unlicensed sale, mislabelling, or record-keeping lapse, families can sue for breach of statutory duty, seeking compensatory damages in tort.
    
4. Victim-Compensation Schemes under Criminal Procedure In a homicide, courts under Section 357 CrPC may direct convicted offenders (including dealers) to pay compensation to victims’ families. Under Section 357A CrPC, State Victim Compensation Funds can grant relief—though typically limited to violent crimes and dependent on state schemes.

Practical Steps for Families

• Secure FIR/Charge-sheet: Ensure police record the case as death by poisoning and investigate both manufacturer and dealer.
• Civil Suit & Insurance Claim: File a tortious damages suit in the district court and a parallel insurance claim under the Public Liability Insurance Act.
• PIL or Writ Petition: Where systemic lapses exist (e.g., widespread Celphos misuse), a Public Interest Litigation under Articles 32/226 may broaden relief and enforce stricter oversight.
• Legal Aid: Engage a lawyer experienced in environmental torts and statutory-liability cases to synchronize civil, insurance and criminal remedies.

Families of Celphos victims thus have multiple, overlapping channels to hold both manufacturer and dealer financially accountable—ensuring that the burden of tragic poisoning doesn’t rest on bereaved dependents alone.

Written By: Dr Shri Gopal Kabra
MBBS, LLB, MSc, MS(Anatomy), MS(Surgery)
Email; [email protected] Ph no: 8003516198