M.C.MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1101, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Body
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1101 
M.C.MEHTA ,.. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
I.A. Nos.366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372 in l.A.No.365 in 
l.A.No.345, l.A.No.369, 373, 374 in I.A. No.366 in I.A. 
No.365 in I.A. No.345 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029/1985 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Civil) No.817 of 2015 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Civil) No.116 of 2013 
AND 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Environment- High pollution in the city-Delhi- Issuance E 
of certain directions to bring down pollution level in Delhi -
Vehicle not bound for Delhi would not be allowed to enter 
from N. H.-8-Rajokri and N. H. -1-Kundli borcler and traffic from 
these points to be diverted to bypass Delhi through such F 
alternative routes stipulated by government- Empty/unladen 
vehicles bound for Delhi, to enter Delhi on payment of the 
Environment Compensation Charge-ECG @ Rs. 7001- and 
Rs. 13001- per vehicle depending upon its category ".'" For 
Delhi bound vehicles loaded with goods, ECG would be twice G 
the charge stipulated - However, those registered in the year 
2005 or earlier would not qualify for such entry-As regards, 
diesel vehicles, registration of SUVs and private cars of the 
capacity of 2000 CC and above using diesel as fuel banned 
H
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. . 
A 
in the NCR upto 31.03.2016-All taxis in the NCTof Delhi, 
plying under city permits to move to C.N.G. by 01.03.2016-
Further to reduce pollution, Government of NCT of Delhi to 
take immediate steps for repair of pavements, construction 
of pavements as also for procurement of vacuum cleaning 
B 
vehicles for use on Delhi roads expeditiously by 01.04.2016 
- Enforcement agencies concerned to put curtains and other 
devices at construction sites - State Government, the local 
bodies and the institutions generating solid waste to rriake 
proper arrangements for disposal of such waste in a scientific 
C way without causing any environment hazard- Said steps to 
.be taken in the right earnest. 
D 
E 
F 
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (2003) 
10 sec 561 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2003) 10 sec 561 
referred to. 
Para 6 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: l:A. Nos.366, 367, 368, 
370, 371, 372 in l.A.No.365 in l.A.No.345, l.A.No.369, 373, 
374 in I.A. No.366 in I.A. No.365 in I.A. No.345 in WP(Civil) 
No.13029/1985 
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India] 
WITH 
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 116/2013, 817 and 728 of2015 
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Pinky Anand, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, 
G Harish N. Salve (A.C.), V Moahan, Dushyant Shyam Divan, J. 
N. Dubey, Aparajita Singh (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao (A.C.), Sidhartha 
Choudhary (A.C.), Jatin Zaveri, TanmayaAgarwal, Arti Singh, 
Pooja Dhar, Meenakshi Grover, Ajay Sharma, Rashmi 
Malhotra,
Harpreet S. Sadhu, Kaushal Yadav, Mukul Singh, 
H S.N. Terdal, B. Krishna Prasad, Wasim S. Qadri, Ajay Sharma,
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.. 
1103 
Zaid Ali, Tamim Qadri, D. S. Mahra, Praveen Swarup, Prabal A 
B.,Ajay Bansal, GauravYadava, Praveen Swarup, Sandeep 
Narain, Chirag M. Shroff, Rohit Kumar, Bhaskar Das, Ashwin 
Reddy, Swati Vaibhav, Neel Kamal Mishra, Anurag Dubey, 
Meenesh Dubey, Rajesh Pandey, S. R. Setia, D. N. Setia, D. 
N. Goburdhun, Abhishek Aggarwal, Lal Ramtiamma, Vijay B 
Panjwani for the appearing parties. 
M.C. Mehta (Petitioner- In- Person). 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
c 
ORDER 
1. We had by our order dated gth October, 2015 issued 
certain directions, aimed at mitigating the hardship which the 
people living in Delhi undergo having regard to the high of D 
pollution in the city that has earned to it the dubious reputation 
of being the most polluted city in the world. We had among 
others directed the following measures to be taken: 
(1) The Governments of the States of Uttar Pradesh, 
E 
Haryana and Rajasthan shall take steps to ensure that 
commercial traffic for destinations other than Delhi use 
alternative routes and to ens.ure that in the course of 
implementation of the said direction no traffic jams and other 
inconvenience is caused to the public. 
F 
(2) The Government of NCT of Delhi shall direct issue 
advertisements to inform commercial traffic of the bypass 
routes and the imposition of the ECC imposed by this Court 
for entry of the vehicles into Delhi. 
G 
(3) The toll.collectors shall put in place Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) systems at their own costs at nine main 
entry points in the city by November 30, 2015 and by 31st 
January, 2016 at all the remaining 118 entry points to the city. 
H
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The NCT Government shall install its own CCTV cameras at 
nine entry points and also organise surprise visits to oversee 
the collection of ECC and other necessary arrangements. 
2. We had by the same order directed levy and collection 
B of ECC at the following rates: 
(i) The Category 2 (light duty vehicles etc.) and Category 
3 (2 axle trucks) at the rate of Rs.700/- per vehicle; 
(ii) Category4 (3 axle trucks) and Category 5 (4 axle trucks 
C and above) at the rate of Rs.1300/- per truck. 
3. Passenger vehicles, ambulances and vehicles carrying 
essential commodities like food stuffs and oil tankers for Delhi 
were exempted from the above charges. 
D 
4. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing 
as amicus, argued that imposition of ECC and the directions 
issued by this Court regarding diversion of commercial . 
vehicles/trucks to alternative routes has made some difference 
but the pollution levels continue to remain high despite such 
E measures. He submitted by reference to the material placed 
on record that the level of pollution detected on or before gth 
October, 2015 was infact lower than the levels recorded on · 
subsequent dates. Mr. Salve further submitted that although 
diversion of vehicles to alternative routes in terms of the order 
F 
passed by this Court was given effect to belatedly on 61h 
November, 2015, yet the said direction has not been effectively 
enforced inasmuch as vehicles not
bound for Delhi are being 
allowed to enter Delhi on payment of the prescribed ECC. It 
G was submitted that the true spirit of the order passed by this 
Court was that vehicles that were bound for Delhi alone were 
to enter Delhi and other vehicles bound for other destinations/ 
cities were supposed to bypass Delhi by using alternative 
routes. He drew our attention to a similar directior:i issued by 
H this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others-(2003)
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
1105 
· 10 SCC 561. It was in that view urged that the order passed A 
by this Court on 9th October, 2015 could be modified/clarified 
to make it clear that the State Governments shall take steps to 
divert vehicles that are not bound for Delhi through alternative 
routes especially those using National Highway-8 and National 
Highway-1 for entering the national capital. It was also B 
contended by Mr. Salve that in order to effectively discourage 
vehicles from entering Delhi, the ECC could be revised 
upwards especially when the Government of NCT of Delhi, the 
M.C.D. and the Union of India were all agreeable to the same. c 
5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing 
for the Union of India, submitted that diversion of traffic away 
from Delhi by use of alternative routes as also by way of 
enhancement of the ECC has been thoroughly discussed with 
the learned Amicus Curiae and that the Union of India and so D 
also the Government of NCT have no objection to such a 
direction being issued. He submitted that as a matter of fact 
discussions held between the· representatives of the two 
governments, namely, Union of India and Government of NCT 
of Delhi as also the M.C.D. had led to a consensus on five 
E 
other points also on which this Court could issue suitable 
directions to help reduce the pollution levels in Delhi. It was 
submitted that the revision of ECC could be upto 100% of the 
amount already stipulated for
vehicles that are Delhi bound 
F 
while other vehicles which are not bound for Delhi could be 
rlirected to bypass Delhi by using alternative routes which the 
two governments could be directed to specify. 
6. By our order dated 6th December, 2001 passed in M.C. 
Mehta v. Union of India and Others- (2003) 10 SCC 561, we G 
had, inter alia, directed : 
"8. It appears that vehicles which transit through Delhi do 
not adhere to the vehicular standards which are 
applicable in Delhi, namely, they are not Euro II-compliant H
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
nor are they using low sulphur and low benzene fuel. 
There is no reason why very large number of goods 
vehicles should transit through Delhi thereby adding to 
the pollution level and the traffic on the road. 
B 
9. It is, therefore, proposed that with effect from 15.1.2002 
no heavy-, medium- or light-goods vehicles will ply on 
inter-State routes by passing through Delhi or New Delhi. 
It is only those goods vehicles which on payment of octroi/ 
toll tax carry goods to or from Delhi which would be 
C 
allowed to ply. The Commissioner of Police is directed 
to formulate a scheme in this behalf and give due publicity 
to all concerned and implement th6 same." 
7. Our order dated 9th October, 2015 was in the same 
D spirit intended to act as a restraint against vehicles not bound 
for Delhi entering Delhi. The said direction appears to have 
been understood to mean as though vehicles not bound for 
Delhi could also enter Delhi provided they pay ECC. The true 
intention, however, was that the vehicles that are not bound for 
E 
Delhi are diverted to alternative routes to bypass Delhi. The 
levy of ECC has no doubt resulted in some diversion of such 
vehicles but a very large number of vehicles not bound for Delhi 
still appear to be entering Delhi on payment of ECC, stipulated 
by us. In the circumstances, we consider it necessary to make 
F 
it clear that no vehicle which is not bound for Delhi will be allowed 
to enter from
N.H.-8 which connects Jaipur to Delhi and N.H.-
1 that connects the States of Punjab, Haryana and other 
northern States to Delhi via Kundli border. We are limiting the 
restraint order to these two entry points for the present because 
G from the figures given to us the largest number of vehicles that 
are entering into Delhi are from these two entry points. We 
according direct that traffic from these two entry points viz. 
Kundli border on N.H.-1 and Rajokri on N.H.-8, shall be diverted 
H to bypass Delhi through such alternative routes as the transport/
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
11{)7 
traffic departments of the governments concerned may A 
stipulate. 
8. We are further of the view that empty/unladen vehicles 
bound for Delhi, can enter Delhi on payment of the ECC earlier 
stipulated by us @ Rs.700/- and Rs.1300/- per vehicle B 
depending upon the category to which the vehicle belongs. 
We, however, direct that for Delhi bound vehicles loaded with 
goods, the ECC will be twice the charge stipulated by us by 
our order dated 91h October, 2015. This measure shall, in our 
opinion, discourage any vehicle trying to enter Delhi on a false C 
pretext of the goods loaded on it being Delhi bound. 
9. Mr. Salve next argued that the transport vehicles 
registered on or before 2005 which are non-compliant with 
the current pollution control standards also need to be D 
disallowed from entering Delhi even if the same are Delhi 
bound with goods loaded for consumption in the city. There 
was a consensus among learned counsel for the parties even 
on this issue who submitted that Union of India or Government 
of NCT of Delhi have no real objection if a direction to that E 
effect is issued. We accordingly direct that while vehicles 
"bound for Delhi" may enter on payment of ECC at the rates 
stipulated hereinabove, those registered in the year 2005 or 
earlier shall not qualify for such entry. State Governments and 
Union Territories concerned shall ensure that vehicles bearing 
F 
registration numbers of the year 2005 or
earlier do not enter 
Delhi. The governments will evolve a suitable system for 
implementation of this direction. 
10. It was contended by Mr. Salve that since diesel vehicles G 
are the most polluting vehicles contributing to the current state 
of affairs in Delhi, it is time to issue directions banning 
registration of any new private and/commercial light duty diesel 
vehicles in the National Capital Region. This submission was 
opposed by Mr. Ranjit Kumar who submitted that banning of H
11.()8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
commercial light duty diesel vehicles is likely to affect trade 
and commerce within Delhi and supply of essential 
commodities to the people living in the National Capital Region 
especially because such vehicles are used in large numbers 
B 
for ferrying goods from one place to the other in the region. 
11. M/s. Dushyant Dave and Dhruv Mehta, learned senior 
counsel appearing for the automobile dealers selling diesel 
vehicles, also opposed any ban on registration of new private 
vehicles and commercial light duty diesel vehicles as proposed 
C by Mr. Salve. Having given our anxious consideration to the 
submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that the new 
commercial light duty diesel vehicles can for the present 
continue being registered in Delhi on account of the 
dependence of the public on such vehicles for supply of 
D essentials. There is, however, no reason why registration of 
private cars and SUVs using diesel with an engine capacity of 
2000 cc and above should not be banned upto 31st March, 
2016. It is noteworthy that diesel vehicles of 2000 cc and above 
and SUVs are generally used by more affluent sections of our 
E society and because of the higher engine capacity are more 
prone to cause higher levels of pollution. A ban on registration 
of such vehicles will not therefore affect the common man or 
the average citizen in the city of Delhi. We accordingly direct 
F that Registration of SUVs and
private cars of the capacity of 
2000 CC and above using diesel as fuel shall stand banned in 
the NCR upto 31st March, 2016. 
12. It was then argued by Mr. Salve that all taxis including 
aggregators like OLA and UBER plying in the National Capital 
G Region may be moved to C.N.G. fuel within a reasonable time 
but not later than 1st March, 2016. There was a general 
consensus on this subject also primarily because it is hoped 
by all concerned that it will. contribute substantially to the 
reduction of the pollution. We, therefore, direct that all taxis 
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
1109 
including those operating under aggregators like OLA and A 
UBER in the NCT of Delhi, plying under city permits shall move 
to C.N.G. not later than 1st March, 2016. 
13. It was submitted by Mr. Salve that one of the 
contributors to the pollution in the city is dust that rises from 
B 
the roads and pavements which are not fully developed. It was 
submitted that Government of NCT of Delhi could be directed 
to vacuum clean the roads which will substantially reduce the 
pollution levels. To the credit of learned counsel for the 
GovernmentofNCTofDelhi and Union of India and the M.C.D. c 
we must mention that a direction to that effect was not opposed 
by anyone of them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wasim A Qadri, 
learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi submitted 
that the State Government is very keen to undertake these steps 
to reduce the pollution levels and ensure that paving of D 
roadsides starts immediately. Vacuum cleaning will, however, 
take some time as the State Government shall have to 
purchase vacuum cleaning vehicles/appliances for use on the 
roads. 
14. We accordingly direct the Government of NCT of Delhi E 
to take immediate steps for repair of pavements and make 
pavements wherever the same are missing and also to take 
immediate steps for procurement of the requisite vacuum 
cleaning vehicles for use on Delhi roads expeditiously but not F 
later than 1st April, 2016. 
15. It was argued by learned counsel
for the parties that 
one of the major contributors to the current pollution levels is 
the construction activities going on in the National Capital 
Region. It was submitted that Union of India and State G 
Governments concerned must be direded to take steps to 
enforce the C.P.C.B. rules and norms against those engaged 
in such construction activities to prevent further rise of pollution 
levels. We see no reason· to decline a direction to that effect. 
C.P.C.B. norms regarding prevention of pollution by putting H
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A curtains and other devices at construction sites must be strictly 
enforced by the enforcement agencies concerned. We direct 
accordingly. 
16. It is also contended by learned counsel for the parties 
8 that one of the contributors to the pollution is burning of solid 
waste by local bodies like M.C.D., N.D.M.C and institutions 
that generate such waste. It was submitted that burning of solid 
waste was impermissible under the relevant rules and that 
lapses on the part of the concerned authorities in the matter of 
c enforcing the said rules is contributing to the deteriorating 
situation. It was, therefore, prayed that authorities including the 
local bodies and institutions within the National Capital Region 
be directed to refrain from disposing of solid waste by burning 
such waste and to take steps for proper management/disposal 
D of such waste in a scientific manner following the norms and 
the requirements of the relevant rules in that regard. We see 
no reason to decline that prayer either. We accordingly direct 
that the State Government and the local bodies concerned 
including M.C.D .. N.D.M.C. and all other institutions that are 
E generating solid waste shall take steps to ensure that no part 
of such waste is burnt and that proper arrangements are made 
for disposal of such waste in a scientific way without causing 
any hazard to environment. 
F 
17. There are a few other suggestions also mooted by 
learned
counsel for NCT of Delhi with which we are not dealing 
at present as learned counsel for Union of India and the amicus 
curiae wanted some time to examine the same and make their 
submission. They may do so on or before the next date of 
G hearing. 
18. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned counsel for.the toll collector-
SMYR Consortium LLP, prayed for early hearing of his (I.A. 
No.366) for modification of our Order dated 9th October, 2015 
H as according to the learned counsel, the diversion of vehicular

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 
1111 
traffic away from Delhi is seriously impacting the contract A 
entered into by the applicant with M.C.D. 
19. In the circumstances, therefore, while we adjourn these 
proceedings to Tuesday, the 5th January, 2016 to be listed 
along with all pending applications including those filed by the 
B 
toll collector, we direct that steps that we have indicated 
hereinabove shall pe taken by all concerned in the right earnest 
notwithstanding any order to the contrary passed by any court 
or authority or Tribunal whatsoever. 
c 
20. Post on 5th January, 2016. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matter adjourned.