Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court of India

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India on 24 October, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 5194, 2019 (1) ABR 373, (2018) 4 ACC 716, (2019) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 1, (2018) 14 SCALE 263, (2019) 1 ANDHLD 79, (2019) 1 JCR 201 (SC), AIRONLINE 2018 SC 293

Author: Deepak Gupta

Bench: Deepak Gupta, S. Abdul Nazeer, Madan B. Lokur

                                                                              REPORTABLE

                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
                                     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                             WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13029 OF 1985  




          M. C. MEHTA                                                    …PETITIONER(S)

                                                     Versus

          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           …RESPONDENT(S)

          (IN RE : RECOMMENDATION NOS. 2.2.1 AND 2.2.2 OF REPORT
          NOS. 71 AND 78 SUBMITTED BY EPCA)



                                               J U D G M E N T


          Deepak Gupta, J.

1. The seminal issue to be decided is whether Bharat Stage IV (for   short   BS­IV)   compliant   vehicles   should   be   permitted   to   be sold in India after 31.03.2020.

2. Signature Not Verified In   an   earlier   judgment   dated   13.04.2017,   we   have   given Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR detailed   reasons   for   the   order   dated   29.03.2017   whereby   this Date: 2018.10.24 12:08:07 IST Reason:

Court had directed that on and from 01.04.2017, vehicles which 1 are not BS­IV compliant, shall not be sold by any manufacturer or dealer or motor vehicle company whether such vehicle is a two wheeler, three wheeler, four wheeler or commercial vehicle etc.. We had also by the said order prohibited registration of non­ BS­ IV vehicles from 01.04.2017 except if such vehicles were sold on or before 31.03.2017.   Since in the judgment dated 13.04.2017, we have set out in detail the history leading to implementation of the Bharat Stage compliant fuels, it is not necessary to repeat the same   here.     However,   a   short   recap   of   the   same   would   be apposite to understand the issues in hand.

3. In 2003, the Government of India announced the National Auto   Policy   based   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Mashelkar Committee constituted in 2001.   BS­IV compliant vehicles were made   compulsory   for   four   wheelers   in   different   parts   of   the country on different dates starting from 01.04.2005, from which date registration of only BS­IV compliant vehicles were permitted in   the   metropolises   of   Delhi,   Ahmedabad,   Bengaluru,   Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata.   Thereafter, it was made compulsory to have BS­IV compliant vehicles in some other cities from 01.04.2010. More   cities   were   added   on   21.05.2010   and   on   14.07.2015. 2 Finally, by amendment dated 19.08.2015 it was mandated that BS­IV norms would come into force throughout the country w.e.f. 01.04.2017.  

4. As far as two and three wheelers are concerned, they were made subject to BS­III norms on and with effect from 01.04.2010 by   insertion   of   sub­rule   16   in   Rule   115   of   the   Central   Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’.   With effect   from   04.07.2014,   it   was   mandated   that   on   and   from 01.04.2016   all   two   wheeler   vehicles   will   comply   with   BS­IV emission   norms   and   all   existing   models   will   shift   to   BS­IV emission   norms   from   01.04.2017.     Similarly,   Rule   17   was inserted   in   Rule   115   of   the  Rules  on  12.06.2015  in   respect  of three   wheelers   wherein   BS­IV   standard   would   be   applicable   to new   models   on   or   after   01.04.2016.     Resultantly,   only   those vehicles   which   were   BS­IV   compliant   would   be   sold   after 01.04.2017.

5. An issue was raised by the manufacturers of motor vehicles that they should be given reasonable and sufficient time for sale of stocks of those vehicles which are not BS­IV compliant vehicles 3 but manufactured up to 31.03.2017.   This Court did not accept the   submission   of   the   manufacturers   and   issued   the   direction referred   to   hereinabove.     It   would   be   interesting   to   note   that though   some   of   the   manufacturers   of   two   wheelers   and   three wheelers took a stand before this Court that great technological changes are required to make the vehicles BS­IV compliant, one of the largest manufacturers of two wheelers and three wheelers in India i.e. Bajaj Auto, filed an application in this Court praying that it was already manufacturing BS­IV compliant vehicles and that  the   vehicles   not  complying  to  BS­IV norms should  not be registered after 2017.

6. The issue before us is somewhat similar.  Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Mr. Sandeep Narain, learned counsel appearing for the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (for short ‘SIAM’), have submitted that though they are not averse to manufacturing   BS­VI   compliant   vehicles,   they   should   be   given some   time   to   sell   the   stocks   of   non­BS­VI   compliant   vehicles manufactured upto 31.03.2020.  In this regard, they have made reference to the notification dated 20.02.2018 whereby sub­rule 4 21 has been inserted in Rule 115 of the Rules, which reads as follows:

“In the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, in rule 115, after   sub­rule   (20),   the   following   sub­rule   shall   be inserted namely:­ “(21)   New   motor   vehicles   conforming   to   Emission Standard Bharat Stage­IV, manufactured before the 1 st April, 2020 shall not be registered after the 30 th June, 2020:
Provided that the new motor vehicles of categories M and N conforming to Emission Standard Bharat Stage­ IV, manufactured before the 1st April, 2020 and sold in the form of drive away chassis, shall not be registered after the 30th September, 2020.”

7. It is submitted that the Government of India while balancing the need for a cleaner environment with the practical difficulties faced by the manufacturers has given a three months’ window to the   automobile   manufacturers   to   dispose   of   the   vehicles conforming to BS­IV norms.   In respect of certain categories of commercial vehicles in which only a chassis is sold and a body has   to   be   built   thereupon,   the   period   of   registration   has   been extended up to 30.09.2020.

8. It has been contended on behalf of SIAM that in Europe the normal   practice   is   that   about   one   year’s   time   is   given   to   the 5 manufacturers   of   vehicles   when   a   higher   quality   of   fuel   is introduced and the fuel is introduced much earlier and thereafter an outer limit is fixed for sale of compliant vehicles.  According to SIAM, BS­VI fuel will be available in the entire country only with effect from 01.04.2020 and manufacturers are, therefore, forced to stop production after 31.03.2020.  Therefore, it is not feasible for the manufacturers to switch over to BS­VI compliant vehicles overnight.  They have to be given some reasonable time for sale of the   accumulated   stocks   of   non­BS­VI   (i.e.   BS­IV)   compliant vehicles.  It is further submitted that six to nine months’ time is required   to   shift   the   assembly   line   to   make   BS­VI   compliant vehicles and if the request of the manufacturers is not accepted, they  will have  to  start manufacturing BS­VI compliant vehicles well before 31.03.2020 and at least three to six months’ prior to the said date.  It has also been contended that earlier BS­VI fuel was to be introduced with effect from 01.04.2024, which was pre­ poned  to 01.04.2023  and it was then pre­poned to 01.04.2021 and finally the date was advanced to 01.04.2020.  It was decided to leapfrog from BS­IV fuel to BS­VI fuel without shifting to BS­V fuel.   According to SIAM, this is creating a lot of difficulties for the manufacturers.  

6

9. Mr. Gopal Subaramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the manufacturers, submits that his clients are already manufacturing   vehicles   which   are   both   BS­IV   and   BS­VI   fuel compliant   and   they   are   on   the   road   already.     Mr.   A.N.S. Nadkarni,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   submits   that keeping in view the difficulties faced by the manufacturers and balancing the need to have a cleaner environment, three months’ period given to the manufacturers is reasonable.   He also urges that   the   Rules   have   not   been   challenged   by   any   party   and, therefore, this Court should not go into the validity of the Rules.  

10. On   the   other   hand,   Ms.   Aparajita   Singh,   learned   amicus curiae, has made a passionate plea that no non­BS­VI compliant vehicle should be permitted to be sold in the entire country after 01.04.2020.   She has drawn our attention to the Report of the Parliamentary   Standing   Committee   (for   short   ‘the   Committee’) dated   07.08.2018.     This   Report   mainly   deals   with   National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi but there are some references to the   entire   country.     Some   of   the   observations   made   by   the Committee   need   to   be   considered   and   taken   note   of.     The 7 Committee in Para 5.15 notes that the problem of air pollution is affecting all human beings and any leniency on the part of the Government   in   tackling   it   will   have   a   cascading   effect   on   the health of the citizens.   These observations have been made with specific reference to vehicular pollution and the need to ensure compliance of BS­VI norms with effect from 01.04.2020.   There can be no two views that air pollution is hazardous to health.  We may, also take note of certain observations of the Report of the Committee   which  show  that one out of three children in Delhi suffers from respiratory problems.   This is almost twice as high as compared to the city of Kolkata or rural areas.  We may note that   the   World   Health   Organisation’s   (WHO)   database   of   more than   4,300   cities   showed   Indian   cities   of   Gwalior,   Allahabad, Raipur, Delhi, Ludhiana, Khanna, Varanasi and Patna as being among the most polluted in the world 1.  Our attention has been drawn   to   various   other   documents   which   clearly   show   the deleterious   effects   of   pollution   on   health.       The   hazards   of pollution and its ill effect on the health of the citizens especially children are not limited to the city of Delhi or the NCR of Delhi but affect all the citizens of the country.

1 “World’s Most Polluted Cities”, World Economic Forum, 03.05.2018 8

11. The Union Government has spent about Rs.30,000 crores to manufacture BS­IV compliant fuel.  We have been informed that another Rs. 30,000/­ crores of the taxpayers’ money have been expended by the Union to ensure that the fuel available in the country   is   BS­VI   compliant.     It   is   heartening   to   note   that   the Union, being concerned with the health of the citizens and also taking note of the urgent need for a clean environment, has taken steps  to  manufacture  cleaner fuel.   This fuel has already  been made   available   in   the   National   Capital  Territory   (NCT)  of  Delhi from 01.04.2018 and we have been informed that barring a few places, it shall be available in the entire NCR from 01.04.2019.  It will probably be available in many parts of the country prior to 01.04.2020 and the entire country will shift to BS­VI fuel from 01.04.2020.   Obviously, the manufacture of clean fuel is being done   in   a   phased   manner   because   all   the   refineries   cannot simultaneously start manufacturing clean fuel.  It is not as if on 01.04.2020 just by waving a magic wand the entire country will change   to   BS­VI   compliant   norms.     If   all   the   refineries   and manufacturers by taking note of the requirement to bring in BS­ 9 VI fuel, have introduced such fuel from 2018 and are introducing it in a phased manner in the entire country by 31.03.2020, we see no reason why manufacturers of automobiles, two wheelers, three wheelers etc. cannot also do so.

12. We   may   note   that   whereas   in   this   Court   SIAM   has   been canvassing  that the  shift to BS­VI  compliant vehicles is a long drawn   out   process   requiring   huge   changes   in   technology,   the very   same   manufacturers   are   selling   and   exporting   BS­VI compliant vehicles to Europe and other countries.  With regard to two wheelers it has been specifically urged that the technological changes   are   immense.     To   counter   this   argument   the   learned amicus curiae has drawn our attention to a Press Release issued by   M/s.   Hero   MotoCorp.,   which   is   one   of   the   largest   motor manufacturers   of   two   wheelers   in   the   country.     In   this   Press Release issued in July 2017 it has been stated that M/s. Hero MotoCorp. has begun developing BS­VI compliant models and it aims   to   introduce   such   products   much   before   the   timeline   of 2020.  The company has also stated that it will manufacture only BS­VI fuel compliant vehicles well before the date stipulated by 10 the   authorities.     If   one   manufacturer   can   do   this,   we   see   no reason why other manufacturers of two wheelers cannot do so.  

13. With   regard   to   trucks   and   buses,   from   a   news   item published   in   the   Financial   Express   dated   06.07.2018,   it   is apparent that Eicher is already manufacturing trucks and buses which are not only BS­VI compliant but BS­VI CNG compliant. Another manufacturer of heavy vehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland had, in August, 2018 through its subsidiary Optare obtained an order to   manufacture   the   world’s   first   electric   double   decker   buses. The   technology   needed   to   manufacture   such   electric   buses   is much   more   advanced   and   difficult   as   compared   to   the technological changes required to manufacture petrol and diesel vehicles  which are  BS­VI  compliant.   Similarly, TVS Motors on 07.08.2018 has issued a press note that it will be manufacturing BS­VI  compliant  vehicles  much ahead of the deadline of 2020. Many members of SIAM in the Auto Expo held in February, 2018 have   exhibited   vehicles   which   are   technologically   much   more advanced than BS­VI compliant vehicles.   These manufacturers have   not   only   asserted   that   they   can   manufacture   electric 11 vehicles but also asserted that they are developing hydrogen cell fuel vehicles along with hybrid, electric and CNG vehicles.  

14. We have mentioned these facts only to highlight that some of   the   manufacturers   are   not   willing   to   comply   with   the 31.03.2020 deadline not because they do not have the technology but because the use of technology will lead to increase in the cost of   the   vehicles   which   may   lead   to   reduction   in   sales   of   the vehicles and ultimately their profit.  There can be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if one has to choose between health and wealth, keeping in view the expanded scope of Article 21   of   the   Constitution,   health   of   the   teeming   millions   of   this country   will   have   to   take   precedence   over   the   greed   of   a   few automobile manufacturers.  The automobile manufacturers must behave responsibly.  We expected that keeping in view our earlier order,   they   would   have   themselves   volunteered   to   be   BS­VI compliant by 31.03.2020.   Unfortunately, this has not been the case with some of the manufacturers and they want to stretch on the timeline by a few days or months for no other reason but to make a little more money.  

12

15. When   we   compare   BS­VI   fuel   with   BS­IV   fuel,   there   is   a massive   improvement   in   environmental   terms.     Once   BS­VI emission norms are enforced, there will be a 68% improvement in PM2.5.  This is not a small change.  It is a vast improvement and the faster it is brought, the better it is.   The amicus curiae has strenuously urged that, at least, in the NCR of Delhi, the BS­VI norms be applied for sale of vehicles from 01.04.2020.   We feel that it may not be practical to introduce BS­VI compliant vehicles region­wise  or   city­wise.    In our  view, the BS­IV experiment in this regard was not very successful.  BS­VI compliant vehicles are going   to   be   more   expensive   than   BS­IV   compliant   vehicles. People   have   a   tendency   to   buy   cheaper   vehicle(s)   even   from   a neighbouring   city.     We   also   strongly   feel   that   the   problem   of pollution is not limited to the NCR of Delhi but it is a problem which has engulfed the entire country especially the major cities. India has the dubious distinction of having 15 out of the 20 most polluted cities in the world.   The pollution in Gwalior, Raipur & Allahabad   is   worse   than   Delhi.     The  situation   is  alarming   and critical.  It brooks no delay.

13

16. It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to a decent environment 2. It includes within its ambit the right of a citizen to live in a clean environment 3.   With regard to vehicular traffic, this Court has issued a number of directions to ensure a clean environment and reduce pollution4. It has been held that the right to clean environment is a fundamental right 5. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows   from   the   “quality”   of   life   which   is   an   inherent   part   of Article   21   of   the   Constitution.     The   right   to   live   with   human dignity   becomes   illusory   in   the   absence   of   a   healthy environment6.  The right to life not only means leading a life with dignity but includes within its ambit the right to lead a healthy, robust life in a clean atmosphere free from pollution.  Obviously, such   rights   are   not   absolute   and   have   to   co­exist   with 2 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630;(1990) 1 SCC 520.   3 Bhavani River ­ Sakthi Sugars Ltd., In re, (1998) 2 SCC 601 4 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 60, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Matter regarding emmission standard for vehicles), (1999) 6 SCC 12, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 191, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 394 5 N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.

6 Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc,   AIR 1990 SC 630,   M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,(2004) 12 SCC 118,   State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389. 

14 sustainable development.  Therefore, if there is a conflict between health   and   wealth,   obviously,   health   will   have   to   be   given precedence.   When we are concerned with the health of not one citizen but the entire citizenry including the future citizens of the country,   the   larger   public   interest   has   to   outweigh   the   much smaller   pecuniary   interest   of   the   industry,   in   this   case   the automobile   industry,   especially   when  the   entire   wherewithal   to introduce the cleaner technology exists.

17. It is therefore necessary to ensure that BS­VI compliance is uniform throughout the country so that even those areas of the country  which fortunately  have not suffered the ills of extreme pollution   are   safe   in   the   future.     The   sale   of   automobiles   and other vehicles is rising exponentially and the number of vehicles on the  road   is   increasing  day  by  day.   Therefore, even a day’s delay in enforcing BS­VI norms is going to harm the health of the people.  We are dealing here with a situation where children and unborn   children   suffer   from   pollution   and   issues   of   inter­ generational   equity   are   involved.     Do   we   as   a   society   or   as manufacturers of automobiles have a right to manufacture more polluting vehicles when we have the technology to manufacture 15 less polluting vehicles?  The answer is obviously a big NO.  If we were to factor only economics even then it makes no economic sense to have more polluting vehicles on the roads.  The effect of pollution on the environment and health is so huge that it cannot be   compensated   in   the   marginal   extra   profits   that   the manufacturers   might   make.     The   amount   spent   on   countering the ills of pollution such as polluted air, damaged lungs and the cost of healthcare far outweigh the profits earned.  

18. It was urged on behalf of the manufacturers that there are multiple sources of pollution and vehicles only contribute to 2% of the pollution.   We are not in agreement with this submission because the Report of the Committee to which we have adverted hereinabove states that contribution of vehicles to ambient PM 2.5 concentration during winter season is 25% and in the summer season it contributes 9%.   Even if we were to accept the figures submitted by SIAM, we are of the view that no step is too small when   it   comes   to   fighting   pollution.       Small   steps   to   reduce pollution when taken together will lead to large scale reduction in pollution which will result in much cleaner air, which eventually 16 will result in a cleaner and better environment, healthier citizens and most importantly a  healthier generation to come.  

19. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending in   court  for   a   long   time   and  also  in   view  of  the   fact  that  it  is because of orders of this Court that BS­IV and now BS­VI norms have   been   introduced   from   the   dates   which   were   not   even thought of by the Government, we feel that we have to take suo moto   notice   of   the   Rules.     At   the   outset,   we   may   notice   that sub­rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague.  It does not talk of sale of vehicles.     It   only   mentions  registration   of   vehicles   and   permits registration   of   vehicles   conforming   to   BS­IV   norms   up   to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to 30.09.2020. This rule, in our view, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in as much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond 31.03.2020 and must be accordingly read down.   Any extension of   time   in   introducing   the   new   norms   which   is   not   absolutely necessary   adversely   impacts   the   health   of   the   citizens   and   is, therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.   This Rule goes against the spirit of all the orders passed earlier by this Court.     In   the   month   of   March,   2017   we   were   dealing   with   a 17 situation   when   BS­VI   norms   were   to   be   made   effective throughout   the   country   with   effect   from   01.04.2020   and   this Court had directed that non­ BS­IV compliant vehicles shall not be registered on or after 01.04.2017.  The situation in the present case is totally different.   31.03.2020 is almost 1  ½ years away. There is sufficient time for the manufacturers to change over to the new system and, therefore, we see no reason why they should be given a window of three or six months for sale of accumulated vehicles.  Every vehicle sold after the cut­off date of 01.04.2020 is bound   to   cause   more   pollution   and,   therefore,   the manufacturers,   in  our  considered view, cannot be permitted to sell any non­BS­VI compliant vehicle on or after 01.04.2020.  On the one hand, the Government has been pro­active in spending huge amounts of money to move to the BS­VI technology, but on the   other   hand,   the   automobile   industry   is   coming   up   with   a variety of untenable excuses just to delay the introduction of BS­ VI   compliant   vehicles   by   a   few   months.     We,   in   our   judgment dated 13.04.2017, had clearly held “when the health of millions of our countrymen is involved, notification relating to commercial activities  ought  not to  be  interpreted in a literal manner.”   We have to give a purposive interpretation to notifications specially 18 those dealing with public health issues and even more so, when health not only of the citizens at present but also the citizens in the future is involved.  There is more than sufficient time for the manufacturers to manufacture BS­VI compliant vehicles.   They already have the technology to do so.   The automobile industry must show the will, responsibility and urgency in this regard.

20. The   Government   has   developed   a   policy   of   phasing   out polluting   vehicles   and   discouraging   the   manufacturers   of polluting   vehicles.     This   has   been   done   in   a   gradual   manner. Europe   introduced   Euro­IV   fuel   in   the   year   2009   and   Euro­VI standards in 2015.  We are already many years behind them.  We cannot afford to fall back further even by a single day.  The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible.  

21. Therefore,   in   exercise   of   the   power   vested   in   this   Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub­rule 21 of   Rule   115   and   direct   that   sub­rule   21   of   Rule   115   shall   be interpreted   and   understood   to   read   that   no   motor   vehicle conforming   to   the   emission   standard   Bharat   Stage­IV   shall   be 19 sold   or   registered   in   the   entire   country   with   effect   from 01.04.2020.      

….……………………..J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) …………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) .….…………………….J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) New Delhi October 24, 2018 20