court_order.gif (857 bytes) (Page 1 of 2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.13029 OF 1985
M.C.Mehta ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others ... Respondents

Articles 39 (e), 47 and 48A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to Secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment. It was by reason of the lack of effort on the part of the enforcement agencies, notwithstanding adequate laws being in place, that this Court has been concerned with the state of air pollution in the capital of this country. Lack of concern or effort on the part of various governmental agencies had resulted in spiraling pollution levels. The quality of air was steadily decreasing and no effective steps were being taken by the administration in this behalf.

It was by reason of the failure to discharge its constitutional obligations, and with a view to protect the health of the present and future generations, that this Court, for the first time, on 23rd September, 1986, directed the Delhi Administration to file an affidavit specifying steps taken by it for controlling pollution emission of smoke, noise, etc. from vehicles plying in Delhi.

The concern of this Court in passing various orders since 1986 has only been one, namely, to protect the health of the people of Delhi. It is only with this objective in mind that directions had been issued in an effort to persuade the governmental authorities to take such steps as would reduce the air pollution. It is as a result of intervention by this Court that the following measures were taken in controlling pollution to some extent.

a) lowering of sulphur content in diesel, first to 0.50% and then to 0.05%;
b) ensuring supply of only lead free petrol;
c) requiring the fitting of catalytic converters;
d) directing the supply of pre-mix 2T oil for lubrication of engines of two-wheelers and three-wheelers;
e) directing the phasing out of grossly polluting old vehicles;
f) directing the lowering of the benzene content in petrol; and
g) ensuring that new vehicles, petrol and diesel, meet Euro-II standards by September, 2000.

It was during the course of these proceedings that the Bhure Lal Committee was established under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority is a statutory authority constituted under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and its directions are final and binding on all persons and organisations concerned. This position has been reiterated by this Court in Sector 14 Residents' Welfare Association and Others Vs. State of Delhi and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 161. It is this authority which had directed the phasing out of non-CNG buses. It is the Bhure Lal Committee which has also recommended the conversion to CNG mode and issued directions that non-CNG buses should be phased out.

It is the report of the Bhure Lal Committee which was accepted, and orders were passed by this Court on 28th July, 1998, fixing the time limit within which the switch-over to CNG was to take place. It may be mentioned here that the need for finding an alternative fuel to diesel had been drawing the attention of this Court for quite some time. This is evident from the order dated 21st October, 1994, in which it was observed as follows:-

"On an earlier occasion when these matters came up before this Court it was suggested that to begin with of Government vehicles and public undertaking vehicles including public transport vehicles could be equipped with CNG cylinders with necessary modification in the vehicles to avoid pollution which is hazardous to the health of the people living in highly polluted cities like Delhi and the other metros in the country."


Again, in the order dated 28th March, 1995, and 9th February, 1996, long before the receipt of the Bhure Lal Committee report, there is a reference to conversion of government vehicles to CNG, as well as to the installation of CNG stations a d kits. It is unfortunate that the efforts of the governmental authorities have not kept pace with the orders passed by this Court. For more than one year, under one pretext or the other, first the NCT of Delhi and then the Union of India have been seeing extension of time for conversion of commercial vehicles to CNG. While the anxiety of the Delhi Government, to give it the benefit of doubt, was To see that bus services in this city were not disrupted which was the reason that it had sought extensions of the time limit, the response of the Union of India in this regard is baffling, to say the least.

With a view that the disruption in bus services does not take place and unnecessary hardship is not caused, this Court has been extending the time with regard to the conversion of commercial vehicles. Time was first extended to 30th September, 2001, and then to 31st January, 2002. It is during the period January, 2001, to February, 2002, that action has been taken by the Union of India, which leaves us with no doubt that its intention, clearly, is to frustrate the orders passed by this Court with regard to conversion of commercial vehicles to CNG. The manner in which it has sought to achieve this object is to try and dis-credit CNG as the proper fuel and, secondly, to represent to this Court that CNG is in short supply and, thirdly, delay the setting up of adequate dispensing stations.

In 2001, the Union of India hurriedly set up a Committee headed by Mr. R.A. Mashelkar to give a report with regard to vehicular pollution. It was surprising that since 1986, the Union of India had not thought of setting up such a Committee until after 31st January, 2001, when an order was passed in which the apathy on the part of the Government in carrying out the orders of this Court was taken note of, and the authorities were required to comply with the orders passed. The composition of the Mashelkar Committee was such that none of its members was either a doctor, or an expert in public health. The said Committee submitted its report, which does not show any serious concern in protecting the health of the people. The Committee recommended that emission norms should be laid down, and that the choice of the fuel should be left to the users. The Committee seemed to have overlooked the fact that such norms had been in place for a long time with hardly any compliance thereof. For instance, the emission norms with regard to the quality of air and water have been statutorily provided for but despite this, prior to 1996, Delhi was the third most polluted city in the world. It will not be out of place to mention that there are various emission and there norms and regulations which are in place, but are invariably breached. The existence of building regulations have not been able to control rampant unauthorised and illegal construction, just as the existence of norms relating to effluents have not prevented pollution. Yamuna is no more a holy river, it has been relegated to a sewage drain. Norms regarding quality of water and the various orders passed by this Court in another case have not been successful in adding any oxygen in the water, the BOD level being zero. Therefore, it is naïve of the Mashelkar Committee to expect that merely laying down fresh emission norms will be effective or sufficient to check or control vehicular pollution.

One of the principles underlying environmental law is that of sustainable development. This principle requires such development to take place which is ecologically sustainable. The two essential features of sustainable development are:

a) the precautionary principle and
b) the polluter pays principle.

The "precautionary principle" was elucidated thus by this Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 647, inter alia, as follows:
a) the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
b) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
c) The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer to show that his action is environmentally benign.
d) It cannot be gainsaid that permission to use automobiles has environmental implications, and thus any "auto policy" framed by the Government must, therefore, of necessity conform to the Constitutional principles as well as over-riding statutory duties catch upon the Government under the EPA.
e)

The "auto policy" must, therefore,
1. focus upon measures to ".Anticipate, prevent and attack." the cause of environmental degradation in this field.
2. In the absence of adequate information, lean in favour of environmental protection by refusing rather than permitting activities likely to be detrimental.
3. Adopt the "precautionary principle" and thereby ensure that unless an activity is proved to be environmentally benign in real and practical terms, it is to be presumed to be environmentally harmful.
4. Make informed recommendations which balance the needs of transportation with the need to protect the environment and reverse the large scale degradation that has resulted over the years, priority being given to the environment over economic issues.


Norms for emission and norms for the fuel have existed for over the last two decades - and the state of the environment is dismal despite the existence of these norms. The emission norms stipulated by the Government have failed to check air pollution, which has grown to dangerous levels across the country. Therefore, to recommend that the role of the Government be limited to specifying norms is a clear abdication of the constitutional and statutory duty cast upon the Government to protect and preserve the environment, and is in the teeth of the "precautionary principle".

The recommendations made by the Bhure Lal Committee and the directions issued in 1998 have not been challenged by the Union of India. The directions issued by the Bhure Lal Committee are statutory and continue to be in force. It is not, therefore, open to the Union of India to seek variation of the same without any justifiable reason. Prior to the filing of its affidavit of 26th April, 2001, the Union of India never opposed the changeover to CNG. Its application being I.A. No. 116 for variation was dismissed on 27th April, 2001. In the order dated 17th September, 2001, this Court observed, while dealing with another application being I.A. No. 142 in which prayer (d) was that the bus operators should have an option of using either CNG or diesel with 0.05 sulphur content, that "we do not see any justification to grant prayer (d) at this stage". Mr. Rohtagi, Addl. Solicitor General submitted that the use of the expression "at this stage" meant that such a request could be met or made at a subsequent point of time and that is why the present application filed on 5th February, 2002 for modification had been filed by the Union of India. The said plea of Mr. Rohtagi cannot be accepted and is not in accordance with the orders passed by this Court. As a ready noticed, a prayer to this effect was first made by the Union of India in I.A. No. 116. In the order of 27th April, 2001, it was observed that The Court did not think that any modification of its order dated 26th March, 2001 was required. The application was disposed of and the request for modification was not accepted. While disposing of the application I.A. No. 142 it was first observed in the order as follows:-

"Our order dated 28.7.1998 with regard to conversion of entire city bus fleet (DTC and private) to single fuel mode of CNG (direction 'G') does not require any modification or change. That direction stands."


When in this order, it was observed that there was no justification to grant prayer (d) "at this stage" it only meant that the question of considering such a request did not arise specially when similar plea for modification had been rejected earlier. The expression "at this stage" only meant at this late stage. The use of the expression "at this stage" cannot be interpreted as permitting the Union of India to once again ask for modification of the Court's order with regard to conversion of the city bus fleet to CNG mode.

contd.