Abstract

Background: Aluminium phosphide (AlP), marketed as Celphos, is a potent fumigant critical for grain storage. Despite regulatory restrictions, illicit household use has led to an epidemic of suicides and accidental deaths in Asia, with mortality rates exceeding 70%. This review examines medicolegal challenges under India›s new criminal codes (BNS/BNSS). Methods: A synthesis of case reports, legislative frameworks (Insecticides Act 1968, BNS 2023, BNSS 2023, Environmental Protection Act), and judicial precedents (e.g., Et al), augmented by AI analysis of clinical, epidemiological, and legal data. Results: AlP poisoning remains predominantly suicidal (0.15–0.5g lethal), driven by clandestine sales to unlicensed users. Regulatory ambiguities in pouchformulation sales persist. Manufacturers/dealers face enhanced criminal/civil liability under multiple statutes for misbranding or negligent distribution under BNS 2023. Police must trace poison sources under BNSS Sections 194/106, while victim families claim compensation via absolute liability torts or Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Conclusion: Strengthening enforcement of sales restrictions, Harmonizing regulations with BNS/BNSS mandates, enforcing dealer accountability, and applying absolute liability are critical to reduce the deaths due to AlP poisoning. Medicolegal protocols must prioritize source-tracing and victim compensation under new criminal codes.

• 1.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 45 of 2023). New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs; 2023.
• 2.   Supreme Court of India. Et al. 1987 AIR 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case).
• 3.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 46 of 2023). New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs; 2023.
• 4.   Kumar A., Singh S., Gupta A. Survival in a case of massive aluminium phosphide ingestion (15g) with immediate vomiting: implications for emergency management. Et al. 2013; 7(2): 112-115.
• 5.   Modepalli N., Reddy K.S., Rao P.V. High mortality in aluminium phosphide poisoning: a call for community education in rural Andhra Pradesh. Et al. 2025; 12(1): 34-38.
• 6.   Babu R., Sharma M., Kumar D. Aggressive supportive therapy in aluminium phosphide poisoning: a case report of survival after 3g ingestion. Et al. 2021; 22(3): 201-204.
• 7.   Kumar S., Verma R., Tripathi A.K. Delayed ischemic stroke following aluminium phosphide poisoning: a rare neurologic complication. Et al. 2023; 15(4): 287-291.
• 8.   Kandel H., Thapa B., Shrestha R. Comprehensive ICU management in aluminium phosphide poisoning with aspiration pneumonia: a recovery case from Nepal. Et al. 2025; 8(2): 89-94.
• 9.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 46 of 1968). New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture; 1968.
• 10.   Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage. *National Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (NSPM-22)*. Faridabad: Ministry of Agriculture; 2020.
• 11.   Narayanaswamy M. Et al. 3rd ed. Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company; 2001.
• 12.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 29 of 1986). New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; 1986.
• 13.   Government of India. Et al. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; 1989.
• 14.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 6 of 1991). New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; 1991.
• 15.   Government of India. Et al (Act No. 35 of 2019). New Delhi: Ministry of Consumer Affairs; 2019.
• 16.   Constitution of India. Article 47: Directive Principles of State Policy. 1950.
• 17.   Rylands v. Fletcher. UKHL 1 (1868).
• 18.   Supreme Court of India. Et al. 1987 AIR 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case).
• 19.   Ibid.
• 20.   Rylands V. Fletcher. UKHL 1 (1868).

Data Sharing Statement

Funding