CJI B.R. Gavai said “age of the vehicle has nothing to do with the emission of pollution”, stressing that mileage matters more than age. The Supreme Court is reviewing Delhi-NCR’s 10 and 15-year vehicle ban policy amid rising air pollution concerns.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday discussed several important issues linked to air pollution in Delhi-NCR, especially the rule that bans older vehicles.
During the hearing, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said that the pollution caused by a vehicle cannot be judged only by its age. He explained that the distance travelled by a vehicle also plays an important role in deciding how much it pollutes.
Sharing what he had recently read, the CJI said,
“Yesterday I read an article, the age of the vehicle has nothing to do with the emission of pollution….some vehicles may run 30,000 km in a year. Like our vehicles for 5 years would not even run 15,000 km in a span of 5 years,”
and pointed out that
“emission also depends on the mileage of a vehicle.”
The case concerns the long-standing vehicle age restrictions in Delhi-NCR, where diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years are banned.
Noting the seriousness of the situation, the Supreme Court said that the matter would now be taken up every month, and government authorities must submit action-taken reports regularly.
The bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran also examined the issue of subsistence allowance for construction workers, who often lose work when pollution control measures restrict construction activity. The bench asked all NCR states to take instructions and submit their responses in the next hearing.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati highlighted an earlier Supreme Court order that protected owners of older vehicles from coercive action.
She said the earlier ruling had restrained authorities from acting against diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years.
She reminded the bench that BS-IV vehicles are exempt from the Government’s GRAP (Graded Response Action Plan) restrictions and requested similar treatment for BS-III vehicles, since such vehicles are already close to or beyond 15 years of age.
The bench had earlier issued notice on a plea filed by the Delhi government asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the 2018 order on end-of-life vehicles. In that order, the Court had directed that petrol vehicles over 15 years old and diesel vehicles over 10 years old must be phased out.
The Delhi government, in its application, argued that such age-based bans ignore improvements in vehicle technology, better emissions control systems, and actual roadworthiness.
The Court had also passed an interim order saying,
“In the meantime, no coercive steps to be taken against the owners of the car on the ground that they are 10 years old in respect to diesel vehicles and 15 years old with respect to petrol vehicles.”
As the air quality in Delhi continues to decline, the Supreme Court looked into whether enough action had been taken by authorities. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the Court that steps like stopping construction activities should have been implemented much earlier.
Addressing the bench, he said,
“When we react to 7 people losing lives in terrorist attack, lung cancer millions are losing their lives..it has become an emergent issue now..construction should have stopped six months ago..GRAP should be triggered the minute AQI crosses 100..”
Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Aparajita Singh also informed the Court that some farmers had reportedly been advised to burn their crop residue at a specific time so that satellite cameras would not record the burning.
She told the bench,
“farmers were told to burn their crops after a particular time so that the satellites don’t catch images.”
Hearing this, the CJI asked,
“Are all farmers deciding a particular time to burn their crops?” and further questioned who was instructing the farmers, showing concern over such claims.
The Court had earlier also called for detailed reports from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on measures taken to control worsening air pollution.
Aparajita Singh informed the bench that some monitoring stations were not working and said,
“If the monitoring stations are not even functioning, we don’t even know when to implement GRAP, that is the severe situation milords”.
ASG Aishwarya Bhatti assured the Court that the required reports would be filed soon.
With the bench of CJI and Justice Chandran now reviewing the issue on a monthly basis, the Court has made it clear that stronger and faster steps are needed to protect public health in the National Capital Region.
Case Title:
MC Mehta vs. Union of India
Read More Reports On Delhi Air Pollution
