Case: M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

emission norms would be prohibited. It did not do so to enable all concerned, particularly the auto industry and marketing strategists to gradually manage their affairs rather than subject them to a sudden future shock. The scheme of a gradual phase-out is now sought to be perverted through a literal interpretation of each notification, unfortunately, for a commercial benefit rather than being appreciated in a larger canvas for the benefit of society as a whole. 53. There is no doubt, therefore, that the various notifications issued and the amendments made to the Rules must be read cumulatively in a purposive manner with the objective of enhancing or protecting further deterioration of the quality of the air we breathe from a continuing and continuous onslaught of pollutants. Office memorandum of 3rd March, 2015 54. In was submitted by learned counsel for the interveners that inherent in the manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles was their entitlement to sell such vehicles any time on or after 1st April, 2017 until the accumulated stock is exhausted. Given the experience of the past, they legitimately expected that they would be allowed to clear the accumulated stock. We questioned learned counsel for the interveners on the time required for disposal of the accumulated stock. No one gave any definite answer - the answers varied from about 5 and 6 months to one year and hedged in with conditions dependent upon market forces and slow moving models. Perhaps Siri would have given a more definite answer.55. In this context, reference was made to the most recent office memorandum dated 3rd March, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It was submitted that the office memorandum made clear the intention of the various notifications, namely, to ensure the manufacture of only BS-IV compliant vehicles after 1st April, 2017 and at the same time ensure that BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st March, 2017 are protected and registered. This is clear from the statement in the office memorandum that there is no bar on vehicles produced prior to the above time lines, meaning thereby that BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st March, 2017 could be sold or registered keeping in view the past practice.56. In our opinion, the only reasonable construction of the office memorandum (issued two years ago) would be that subject to the occurrence of some extraordinary or unforeseen event, should it become necessary to sell and register BS-III compliant vehicles on or after 1st April, 2017 limited exceptions on a case to case basis could be claimed and considered. The office memorandum cannot reasonably be interpreted as a carte blanche to the automobile industry to continue the manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles till the very last day and then plead the necessity of clearing accumulated stock of BS-III vehicles. This would make a mockery of the efforts of all concerned in regulating vehicular emissions and virtually enabling the interveners to emasculate an important component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, namely, the entitlement of millions of our country men and women to breathe less polluted air and ignore public health issues in conducting their business. We cannot be asked to shut our eyes to the phenomenal rise in pollution levels in the country. Blaming EPCA57. It was also contended by learned counsel for the interveners that the automobile industry (as indeed any other industry) needs stability, certainty and predictability in the regulatory regime. This is undoubtedly true but that stability, certainty and predictability was apparent from the time the National Auto Fuel Policy was announced in 2003. Rather than admit responsibility for a lack of concern of public health issues, some of the interveners have sought to blame EPCA for its failure to approach the Government of India to seek amendments to the notifications issued from time to time and to incorporate a prohibition on the sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles on or after 1st April, 2017. Unfortunately, finger-pointing and blame games do not lead anyone anywhere and deserve to be discouraged.58. In any event, the fact is that EPCA had convened a meeting of all stakeholders on 19th October, 2016 and had brought to the notice of the representatives of SIAM that there would be no sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles from 1st April, 2017 and that this should be communicated to all manufacturers. The clear intention of EPCA was to give sufficient notice of almost six months to enable the automobile industry to plan its production and sale and take pro-active steps to significantly decrease the production of BS-III compliant vehicles and correspondingly significantly increase the production of BS-IV compliant vehicles. Unfortunately, SIAM did not heed the caution but expressed the view that it would be difficult to ensure compliance. We were also told that EPCA had no jurisdiction or authority to give such a direction. However, that is not an issue of concern at the present moment.59. EPCA also pointed out in the meeting that BS-IV compliant vehicles reduce pollution by 80% of particulate matter as compared to BS-III compliant vehicles, but even this had no effect.60. The meeting convened by EPCA was followed up by the CPCB when it wrote to SIAM on 10th December, 2016 reiterating that BS-IV fuel would be available all over the country from 1st April, 2017 and that the automobile industry should ensure that the stock of BS-III compliant vehicles are exhausted before that date for reasons mentioned in the minutes of the meeting held on 19th October, 2016. Even this had no effect on SIAM. Therefore, to blame EPCA for their problems is rather unfair of the interveners.61. However one may look at the issue of air pollution, it is time to realize that a collective effort is needed to clear up the air. In this process, the interveners have a huge role and they should now wake up to their responsibility for the benefit of all of us.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In other words, we take it that the Government was and issupporting the reduction of vehicular pollution by controlling the emission norms and complying with the Bharat Stage standards keeping in view the auto fuel policy and the Report of the Expert Committee referred to by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.In our opinion, the interveners have completely ignored the history of the last a decade or so which led to the introduction of Bharat Stage norms and their implementation in a phased manner. The Auto Fuel Policy was announced by the Government of India, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, taking into account, inter alia, the rapid growth in the automobile industry and the increasing number of vehicular population which had become "one of the major causes in the phenomenal rise of air pollution in India." The Standing Committee noted that air pollution is caused by several factors but the dramatic rise in vehicular emissions has compounded the problem.39. It is quite evident therefore that given the recent history and unfolding of events, it was incumbent upon the automobile industry to modulate its views and give secondary importance to commercial profits and takesteps to reduce vehicular pollution. It seems that the automobile industry was quite sanguine that its desire for selling accumulated stock ofcompliant vehicles even after 1st April, 2017 would be acceded to. This is evident from the past practice when it had become necessary, in one sense, for the Government of India to virtually submit to the commercial interests of the automobile industry by permitting the registration ofcompliant vehicles in some cities while permitting the sale and registration ofII compliant vehicles in other cities even after thedate of 1st April, 2005 till the accumulated stock is exhausted.exhausted.41. No one knows, nor were we told how long these accumulated stock were expected to last or actually lasted. But the fact of the matter is that we would have expected the automobile industry to have shown some responsibility and taken a positive approach to reduce vehicular pollution and ensure thatvehicles are not manufactured so that air pollution in the country does not continue unabated and to take measures to curtail the phenomenal rise in air pollution recognized by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.The sum and substance of the discussion is that the automobile industry had, at the very minimum, awarning that it would have to consider issues relating to air pollution as a part of its manufacturing activities and production strategy and thereafter the industry had more than five years to plan out its activities and revisit the strategy, but did not do so.45. On the contrary the automobile industry gave a variety of excuses for not making adjustments for the benefit of the people of the country. Similarly, efforts of the Government to regulate and reduce vehicular emissions were not given the support that they deserved, including taking advantage of time granted for phased introduction ofcomplaint vehicles as per the Government policy. It was submitted during the hearing that the sale ofcompliant vehicles would depend on market forces; at one time it was submitted that demonetization (which took place in November, 2016) upset their plans; at another time it was submitted that some models are slow moving and therefore could not be sold and yet at another time it was submitted that weak market conditions did not make it possible for the industry to dispose of the existingcompliant stock. None of these explanations justify the failure of the automobile industry to increase the production ofcompliant vehicles, in spite of sufficient notice of aand reduce the production ofcompliant vehicles. The attempt, sadly, seems to have been to push all concerned to the wall by putting before them a fait accompli situation and by ignoring the concerns of millions of our country men and women who are entitled to breathe fresh air or at least breathe less polluted air. As is apparent from the figures relating to the production ofIV compliant vehicles supplied to us, this activity and inactivity has been entirely for commercial benefits and to avoid the cost of upgrading availablerespect, this submission cannot be accepted. The health of every person in our country is important and we are more than reluctant to accept any submission that the health of the people can be compromised, even in the smallest measure, for the commercial interests of the automobile industry or of any industry for that matter. Additionally, given that the life of such vehicles would be at least 10 years (as submitted by the interveners) the concern is not only for the present population of the country but for future generations who also have an entitlement to breathe pollution free air. This is what sustainable development andequity is all about.Learned Amicus is right that the entire issue must be looked at in a particular context, as a matter of public health and as a matter of public concern. It is a matter of common knowledge that polluted air can lead to a variety of health problems and this is evident from a casual visit to the website of the CPCB and the World Health Organization. Admittedly, the use ofauto fuel reduces particulate matter in the air by 80% as compared toauto fuel. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Amicus erroneously seeks a prohibition on the sale and registration ofcompliant vehicles on and from 1st April, 2017.Additionally, if the entire scheme laid out by the Governmentof discouraging the manufacture of polluting vehicles and gradually phasing them out coupled with their gradual replacement with fuel efficient vehicles, availability of cleaner and greener fuel and compliance with fuel emission norms is appreciated in a much larger context rather than on a notification by notification basisthe objective behind the scheme would be apparent. The Government could very well have issued one single notification way back in 2010 that with effect from 1st April, 2017 the manufacture, sale and registration of vehicles that do not comply withemission norms would be prohibited. It did not do so to enable all concerned, particularly the auto industry and marketing strategists to gradually manage their affairs rather than subject them to a sudden future shock. The scheme of a gradualis now sought to be perverted through a literal interpretation of each notification, unfortunately, for a commercial benefit rather than being appreciated in a larger canvas for the benefit of society as aquestioned learned counsel for the interveners on the time required for disposal of the accumulated stock. No one gave any definite answerthe answers varied from about 5 and 6 months to one year and hedged in with conditions dependent upon market forces and slow moving models. Perhaps Siri would have given a more definite answer.This is clear from the statement in the office memorandum that there is no bar on vehicles produced prior to the above time lines, meaning thereby thatcompliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st March, 2017 could be sold or registered keeping in view the past practice.56. In our opinion, the only reasonable construction of the office memorandum (issued two years ago) would be that subject to the occurrence of some extraordinary or unforeseen event, should it become necessary to sell and registercompliant vehicles on or after 1st April, 2017 limited exceptions on a case to case basis could be claimed and considered. The office memorandum cannot reasonably be interpreted as a carte blanche to the automobile industry to continue the manufacture ofcompliant vehicles till the very last day and then plead the necessity of clearing accumulated stock ofvehicles. This would make a mockery of the efforts of all concerned in regulating vehicular emissions and virtually enabling the interveners to emasculate an important component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, namely, the entitlement of millions of our country men and women to breathe less polluted air and ignore public health issues in conducting their business. We cannot be asked to shut our eyes to the phenomenal rise in pollution levels in theis undoubtedly true but that stability, certainty and predictability was apparent from the time the National Auto Fuel Policy was announced in 2003. Rather than admit responsibility for a lack of concern of public health issues, some of the interveners have sought to blame EPCA for its failure to approach the Government of India to seek amendments to the notifications issued from time to time and to incorporate a prohibition on the sale and registration ofcompliant vehicles on or after 1st April, 2017. Unfortunately,and blame games do not lead anyone anywhere and deserve to be discouraged.58. In any event, the fact is that EPCA had convened a meeting of all stakeholders on 19th October, 2016 and had brought to the notice of the representatives of SIAM that there would be no sale and registration ofcompliant vehicles from 1st April, 2017 and that this should be communicated to all manufacturers. The clear intention of EPCA was to give sufficient notice of almost six months to enable the automobile industry to plan its production and sale and takesteps to significantly decrease the production ofcompliant vehicles and correspondingly significantly increase the production ofcompliant vehicles. Unfortunately, SIAM did not heed the caution but expressed the view that it would be difficult to ensure compliance. We were also told that EPCA had no jurisdiction or authority to give such a direction. However, that is not an issue of concern at the present moment.59. EPCA also pointed out in the meeting thatcompliant vehicles reduce pollution by 80% of particulate matter as compared tocompliant vehicles, but even this had no effect.60. The meeting convened by EPCA was followed up by the CPCB when it wrote to SIAM on 10th December, 2016 reiterating thatfuel would be available all over the country from 1st April, 2017 and that the automobile industry should ensure that the stock ofcompliant vehicles are exhausted before that date for reasons mentioned in the minutes of the meeting held on 19th October, 2016. Even this had no effect on SIAM. Therefore, to blame EPCA for their problems is rather unfair of the interveners.61. However one may look at the issue of air pollution, it is time to realize that a collective effort is needed to clear up the air. In this process, the interveners have a huge role and they should now wake up to their responsibility for the benefit of all of us.