M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 707 M. C.MEHTA A ## v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (I.A.No. 487, 491, 494, 489 and 495 of 2017) in B (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985) MARCH29,2017 ## [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] _Environment- Pollution -Air Pollution_ - _Commercial vehicles_ C _not complying with Bharat Stage-IV emission standards causing health hazards and adding to the already alarming air pollution levels_ - _Ban on sale and registration of existing stock of such vehicles on and from 1st April, 2017_ - _Plea of manuracturers that they are entitled to manufacture such vehicles till 31s March, 2017 and thus_ D _may be given reasonable time to dispose of such existing stock_ - _Held: The manufacturers of such vehicles were fully aware that eventually from 1st April, 2017 they would be required to manufacture only Bharat Stage-IV compliant vehicles but they chose to sit back and declined to take sufficient pro-active steps_ - _Introduction of such vehicles on the road is a potential health hazard_ E _affecting millions of people in the country_ - _Health of people is far more important than commercial interests of the manufacturers or the loss that they are likely to suffer_ - _On balance, directions issued_ inter alia _prohibiting sale and registration of commercial vehicles non-compliant with Bharat Stage-IV on and from 1st April 2017_ - F _Motor Vehicles Act, 1988_ - _Supreme Court_ - _Directions._ D _MC. Mehta v. Union of India_ (2016) 4 SCC 269 - referred to. ## Case Law Reference G ## (2016) 4 sec 269 referred to Para6 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A.No. 487/2017, I. A. No. 491/2017, I.A. No. 494/2017, I.A. No. 489/2017, I.A. No. 495/2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985 H 707 [2017] 6 S.C.R. 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. A > Ranjit Kumar, sG; Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.(AC), Siddhartha Chowdhury, A. D. N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita Singh, (ACs), S. Wasim A. Qadri, ZaidAli, G.S. Makkar, Kaushik Poddar, Gautam Singh, Ms. Snehil Soniun Singh, Ms. Isha Singh, Tarun Gulati, Neil Hildreth, Rahul Jain, B Kishore Kuna!, Ankur Talwar, Anupam Mishra, Ms. Aswathi Balraj, Ms. Hitakshi Mittal, Abeer Kumar, Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, Sachin Pujari, R.V. Prabhat, Hrishikesh Chitaley, Ashish Verma, Chandra Prakash, Sandeep Naryan, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, _Ms:_ Natasha Sehrawat, Ms. Khushboo Bari, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Sidharth Sharma, Sandeep Narain,Avishkar Singhvi (for _Mis._ S. Narain C & Co.), Vijay Panjwani, Sandeep Narain (for Mis. S. Narain & Co.) Vi jay K. Sondhi, Sujeeta Srivastava, Cauveri Birbal, Arnav Sanyal, Advs. for the appearing parties. B Petitioner-in-person. D The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** 1. We have heard the learned Solicitor General, learned _Amicus Curiae,_ learned counsel for the interveners who are manufacturers of vehicles (two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers and commercial E vehicles - for short referred to as 'such vehicles') and learned counsel for the association of dealers of such vehicles. 2. The seminal issue in these applications is whether the sale and registration and therefore the commercial interests of manufacturers and dealers of such vehicles that do not meet the Bharat Stage-IV (for F short 'BS-IV') emission standards as on 1st April, 2017 takes primacy over the health hazard due to increased air pollution of millions of our country men and women. The answer is quite obvious. 3. The controversy relates to the sale and registration (on and after 1" April, 2017) of such vehicles lying in stock with the G manufacturers and dealers that meet the Bharat Stage III emission standards (for short BS-III standards) but dci not meet the BS-IV emission standards. 4. Briefly, according to the manufacturers, they are entitled to manufacture such vehicles till 31" March, 2017 and they have done so. H In so doing, they say that they have not violated any prohibition or any 709 M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. law. Hence, the sale and registration of such vehicles on and from 1st A April, 2017 ought not to be prohibited. They say that they will not be manufacturing any vehicle 'that does not comply with the BS-N emission standards from and after l st April, 2017 and therefore the only issue is the sale and registration of the existing stock of such vehicles that comply with BS-III emission standards. They say that they may be given B reasonable time to dispose of the existing stock of such vehicles. A 5. On the other hand, according to the _learnedAmicus,_ permitting such vehicles to be sold or registered on or after 1" April, 2017 would constitute a health hazard to millions of our country men and women by adding to the air pollution levels in the country (which are already quite alarming). It is her submission that the manufacturers of such vehicles were fully aware, way back in 2010, that all vehicles would have to convert to BS-N fuel on and from 1 "April, 2017 and therefore, they had more than enough time to stop the production ofB~-m compliant vehicles and· switch over to the manufacture ofBS-N compliant vehicles. In fact, the major manufacturer of 4 wheeler vehicles, Maruti Sazuki had completely switched over to the manufacture ofBS-N compliant vehicles a few years ago. However, for reasons best known to manufacturers of such vehicles and entirely at their peril, they did not make a complete switch (though a partial switch has been made) even though they had the technology and technical know-how to do so. Therefore, keeping the larger public interest in mind and the potentii,ll · health hazard to millions of our country men and women due to increased air pollution, there is no justification for any of the manufacturers not shifting to the manufacture ofBS-N compliant vehicles well before 1" April, 2017. C D E F 6. It has been brought to our notice that on s•h January, 2016 the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the Government of India had submitted before this Court that requisite quality fuel for BS-N compliant vehicles would be available (all over the country) with effect from 1" April, 2017.[1 ] This was confirmed and reiterated by the learned Solicitor st General during the course of hearing and he stated that now from 1 April, 2017 requisite quality fuel for BS-N compliant vehicles would be available all over the country. He also pointed out that the refineries of the Government of India had incurred an expenditure of about Rs.30,000 crores for producing requisite fuel for BS-N compliant vehicles. · G I M.C. Mehta v. Union oflrtdia, (2016) 4 ~~sec~~ 269 H 710 [2017] 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A 7. On balance, in our opinion, the submission of the learned _Amicus_ deserves to be accepted keeping in mind the potential health hazard of such vehicles being introduced on the road affecting millions of our people in the country. The number of such vehicles may be small compared to the overall number of vehicles in the country but the health of the people is far, far more important than the commercial interests of the ·B manufacturers or the loss that they are likely to suffer in respect of the so-called small number of such vehicles. The manufacturers of such st vehicles were fully aware that eventually from l April, 2017 they would be required to manufacture only _BS-N_ compliant vehicles but for reasons that are not clear, they chose to sit back and declined to take sufficient C pro-active steps. · 8. Accordingly, for detailed reasons that will follow, we direct that: st (a) On and from 1 April, 2017 such vehicles that are not BS-IV compliant shall not be sold in India by any manufacturer or dealer, that is D to say that such vehicles whether two wheeler, three wheeler, four wheeler or commercial vehicles will not st be sold in India by any manufacturer or dealer on and from 1 April, 2017. - (b) All the vehicle registering authorities under the Motor Vehicles st - Act, 1988 are prohibited for registering such vehicles on and from 1 - · E April, 2017 that do not meet BS-N . emission standards, except ._ ~ on proof that such a vehicle has already been sold on or before 31 March, 2017. 9. As mentioned above, detailed reasons for the above order will be given in due course. F Divya Pandey Directions issued.