While hearing the Delhi-NCR Air Pollution case, the Chief Justice of Inida today verbally remarked that pollution caused by cars/ vehicles may not depend upon their age alone. The distance they have travelled may also need to be factored in.Some vehicles may cover over 30,000 kilometres in one year, but some others, like the official vehicles of the judges, may not even cross 15,000 km in...
While hearing the Delhi-NCR Air Pollution case, the Chief Justice of Inida today verbally remarked that pollution caused by cars/ vehicles may not depend upon their age alone. The distance they have travelled may also need to be factored in.
Some vehicles may cover over 30,000 kilometres in one year, but some others, like the official vehicles of the judges, may not even cross 15,000 km in five years, the CJI said.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran was hearing the issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR in the MC Mehta Case.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, referred to the earlier order of the Court which restrained coercive action against diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years plying in the Delhi-National Capital Region. Saying that BS-IV vehicles are exempted from GRAP measures, she requested similar measures for BS-III vehicles, because they would already be 15 years old.
Referring to an article he read yesterday, CJI said that the contribution of a vehicle to carbon emissions depends on the distance they may have travelled over the years and not how old it is. He explained :
"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 (official court cars) would not even run 15,000 km in a span of 5 years."
The Court, in its order passed today, said that the Commission for Air Quality Management is at liberty to take such suitable measures which may help in reducing pollution after consulting the concerned stakeholders.
Notably, the bench has directed that (1) all NCR states take instructions on the subsistence allowance and place on record before the court on the next day of hearing; (2) list the present matter on a monthly basis where the action taken report by CAQM is reviewed by this court.
(3) Considering the proposal of CAQM to shift the prohibit the activities banned in GRAP III to GRAP II, the bench also directed that any prohibitive action to reduce pollution would be welcomed; however, the court expects the CAQM to take all stakeholders on board before taking such an action.
Sr Advocate Apprajita Singh also appeared in the matter as the amicus.
Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985
Click Here To Read/Download Order