M. C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 24 October 2018

M. C. MEHTA

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(In Re : Recommendation Nos. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of report Nos. 71 and78 submitted by EPCA)

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985)

OCTOBER 24, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER ANDDEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Environment – Vehicular pollution – Shift from Bharat StageIV (BS-IV) compliant vehicles to BS-VI compliant vehicles – Societyof Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) and other Automobilemanufacturers sought permission to sell BS-IV compliant vehiclesin India after 31.03.2020 and made reference to the notificationdated 20.02.2018 whereby sub-rule 21 has been inserted in Rule115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 – According to SIAM,BS-VI fuel will be available in the entire country only with effectfrom 01.04.2020 and manufacturers were, therefore, forced to stopproduction after 31.03.2020 and switch over to BS-VI compliantvehicles overnight – Held: Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague asit does not talk of sale of vehicles – It only mentions registration ofvehicles and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IVnorms up to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to30.09.2020 – This rule is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution inas much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond31.03.2020 – When BS-VI fuel is compared with BS-IV, there ismassive improvement in environmental terms – Once BS-VI emissionnorms are enforced, there will be 68% improvement in PM 2.5 –Some manufacturers are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020deadline because new use of technology will lead to increase in thecost of the vehicles which may lead to reduction in sales of thevehicles and their profit – However, there can be no compromisewith the health of the citizens and in case of conflict between thehealth and wealth, health will be given precedence – Thus, in exerciseof power vested u/Art.142, sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 to be interpretedand understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the

565

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aemission standard BS-IV shall be sold or registered in entire countrywith effect from 01.04.2020 – Constitution of India – Arts. 142 and21 – Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – Sub-rule 21 in r.115.

Issuing the directions, the Court

HELD: 1. It is because of orders of this Court that BS-IVBand now BS-VI norms have been introduced, now this Court istaking suo moto notice of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.At the outset, sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague. It does nottalk of sale of vehicles. It only mentions registration of vehiclesand permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV normsCup to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to30.09.2020. This rule, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitutionin as much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond31.03.2020 and must be accordingly read down. Any extensionof time in introducing the new norms which is not absolutelynecessary adversely impacts the health of the citizens and is,Dtherefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ThisRule goes against the spirit of all the orders passed earlier bythis Court. From today, 31.03.2020 is almost 1 ½ years away.There is sufficient time for the manufacturers to change over tothe new system and, therefore, there is no reason why they shouldEbe given a window of three or six months for sale of accumulatedvehicles. Every vehicle sold after the cut-off date of 01.04.2020is bound to cause more pollution and, therefore, themanufacturers, cannot be permitted to sell any non-BS-VIcompliant vehicle on or after 01.04.2020. On the one hand, theGovernment has been pro-active in spending huge amounts ofFmoney to move to the BS-VI technology, but on the other hand,the automobile industry is coming up with a variety of untenableexcuses just to delay the introduction of BS-VI compliant vehiclesby a few months. [Para 19] [575-H; 576-A-F]

2. The facts only highlight that some of the manufacturersGare not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020 deadline not becausethey do not have the technology but because the use of technologywill lead to increase in the cost of the vehicles which may lead toreduction in sales of the vehicles and ultimately their profit. Therecan be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if oneHhas to choose between health and wealth, keeping in view the A

expanded scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, health of theteeming millions of this country will have to take precedenceover the greed of a few automobile manufacturers. The automobilemanufacturers must behave responsibly. [Para 14] [573-E-F]

3. The Government has developed a policy of phasing outpolluting vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of pollutingvehicles. This has been done in a gradual manner. Europeintroduced Euro-IV fuel in the year 2009 and Euro-VI standardsin 2015. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel asearly as possible. [Para 20] [577-A-B]

B

4. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Courtunder Article 142 of the Constitution, it is directed that sub-rule21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read thatno motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard BharatStage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country witheffect from 01.04.2020. [Para 21] [577-B-C]

C

D

Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame(1990)1 SCC 520;Bhavani River - Sakthi Sugars Ltd., In re(1998) 2 SCC 601 : [1998] 1 SCR 431;M.C. Mehta v.Union of India(1998) 6 SCC 60;M.C. Mehta v. Unionof India(1998) 6 SCC 63 :[1998] 3 SCR 918 ;M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Matter regarding emissionstandard for vehicles)(1999) 6 SCC 12;M.C. Mehtav. Union of India(2002) 10SCC 191;M.C. Mehta v.Union of India2017 SCC Online SC 394;N.D. Jayalv. Union of India(2004) 9 SCC 362 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 – referred to.

E

F

Case Law Reference

ACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029 of 1985.

Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.

A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Anil Grover, S. S. Shamshery AAGs,Harish N. Salve, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Subramanium,BAshwini Mata, Sr. Advs., Ms. Aparajita Singh, A.D.N. Rao, SiddharthaChowdhury, Advs. (A.Cs.), S. W. A. Qadri, D. L. Chidanand, DevasisBharuka, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ritesh Kumar, Amit Sharma, Rajesh Kr.Singh, Raj Bahadur, Ms. Snidha Mehra, G. S. Makker, B. V. Balramdas,Ms. Anil Katiyar, Shivam Kumar, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Dr. Monika Gusain,CBaij Nath Patel, Ms. Rachana Gupta, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, AmitSharma, Sandeep Singh, Ankit Raj, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Indira Bhakar,Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sandeep Narain, Avishkar Singhvi, Ms. Anjali Agarwalfor M/s S Narain And Co., Akshat Hansaria, Pavan Bhushan, AkashChatterjee, Vijay K. Sondhi, Nakul Sachdeva, Nayamat S., AakarshanSahay, Advs. for the appearing parties.D

Petitioner-in-person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1.The seminal issue to be decided iswhether Bharat Stage IV (for short BS-IV) compliant vehicles shouldEbe permitted to be sold in India after 31.03.2020.

2. In an earlier judgment dated 13.04.2017, we have given detailedreasons for the order dated 29.03.2017 whereby this Court had directedthat on and from 01.04.2017, vehicles which are not BS-IV compliant,shall not be sold by any manufacturer or dealer or motor vehicle companyFwhether such vehicle is a two wheeler, three wheeler, four wheeler orcommercial vehicle etc.. We had also by the said order prohibitedregistration of non- BS-IV vehicles from 01.04.2017 except if suchvehicles were sold on or before 31.03.2017. Since in the judgment dated13.04.2017, we have set out in detail the history leading to implementationof the Bharat Stage compliant fuels, it is not necessary to repeat theGsame here. However, a short recap of the same would be apposite tounderstand the issues in hand.

3. In 2003, the Government of India announced the National AutoPolicy based on the recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee H

constituted in 2001. BS-IV compliant vehicles were made compulsoryfor four wheelers in different parts of the country on different datesstarting from 01.04.2005, from which date registration of only BS-IVcompliant vehicles were permitted in the metropolises of Delhi,Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata. Thereafter, it wasmade compulsory to have BS-IV compliant vehicles in some other citiesfrom 01.04.2010. More cities were added on 21.05.2010 and on14.07.2015. Finally, by amendment dated 19.08.2015 it was mandatedthat BS-IV 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 weremade subject to BS-III norms on and with effect from 01.04.2010 byinsertion of sub-rule 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 vehicleswill comply with BS-IV emission norms and all existing models will shiftto BS-IV emission norms from 01.04.2017. Similarly, Rule 17 wasinserted in Rule 115 of the Rules on 12.06.2015 in respect of threewheelers wherein BS-IV standard would be applicable to new modelson or after 01.04.2016. Resultantly, only those vehicles which wereBS-IV compliant would be sold after 01.04.2017.

5. An issue was raised by the manufacturers of motor vehiclesthat they should be given reasonable and sufficient time for sale of stocksof those vehicles which are not BS-IV compliant vehicles butmanufactured up to 31.03.2017. This Court did not accept the submissionof the manufacturers and issued the direction referred to hereinabove.It would be interesting to note that though some of the manufacturers oftwo wheelers and three wheelers took a stand before this Court thatgreat technological changes are required to make the vehicles BS-IVcompliant, one of the largest manufacturers of two wheelers and threewheelers in India i.e. Bajaj Auto, filed an application in this Court prayingthat it was already manufacturing BS-IV compliant vehicles and thatthe vehicles not complying to BS-IV norms should not be registeredafter 2017.

6. The issue before us is somewhat similar. Mr. Ranjit Kumar,learned senior counsel and Mr. Sandeep Narain, learned counselappearing for the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (for short‘SIAM’), have submitted that though they are not averse to manufacturing A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

ABS-VI compliant vehicles, they should be given some time to sell thestocks of non-BS-VI compliant vehicles manufactured upto 31.03.2020.In this regard, they have made reference to the notification dated20.02.2018 whereby sub-rule 21 has been inserted in Rule 115 of the Rules, which reads as follows:

B“In the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, in rule 115, aftersub-rule (20), the following sub-rule shall be inserted namely:-“(21) New motor vehicles conforming to Emission StandardBharat Stage-IV, manufactured before the 1[st] April, 2020shall not be registered after the 30[th] June, 2020:

CProvided that the new motor vehicles of categories M andN conforming to Emission Standard Bharat Stage-IV,manufactured before the 1[st] April, 2020 and sold in the formof drive away chassis, shall not be registered after the 30[th]September, 2020.”

7. It is submitted that the Government of India while balancingDthe need for a cleaner environment with the practical difficulties facedby the manufacturers has given a three months’ window to the automobilemanufacturers to dispose of the vehicles conforming to BS-IV norms.In respect of certain categories of commercial vehicles in which only achassis is sold and a body has to be built thereupon, the period ofEregistration has been extended up to 30.09.2020.

8. It has been contended on behalf of SIAM that in Europe thenormal practice is that about one year’s time is given to the manufacturersof vehicles when a higher quality of fuel is introduced and the fuel isintroduced much earlier and thereafter an outer limit is fixed for sale ofFcompliant vehicles. According to SIAM, BS-VI fuel will be available inthe entire country only with effect from 01.04.2020 and manufacturersare, therefore, forced to stop production after 31.03.2020. Therefore, itis not feasible for the manufacturers to switch over to BS-VI compliantvehicles overnight. They have to be given some reasonable time for saleof the accumulated stocks of non-BS-VI (i.e. BS-IV) compliant vehicles.GIt is further submitted that six to nine months’ time is required to shift theassembly line to make BS-VI compliant vehicles and if the request ofthe manufacturers is not accepted, they will have to start manufacturingBS-VI compliant vehicles well before 31.03.2020 and at least three tosix months’ prior to the said date. It has also been contended that earlierHBS-VI fuel was to be introduced with effect from 01.04.2024, which was pre-poned to 01.04.2023and it was then pre-poned to 01.04.2021and finally the date was advanced to 01.04.2020. It was decided toleapfrog from BS-IV fuel to BS-VI fuel without shifting to BS-V fuel.According to SIAM, this is creating a lot of difficulties for themanufacturers.

9. Mr. Gopal Subaramaniam, learned senior counsel appearingfor one of the manufacturers, submits that his clients are alreadymanufacturing vehicles which are both BS-IV and BS-VI fuel compliantand they are on the road already. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned AdditionalSolicitor General submits that keeping in view the difficulties faced bythe manufacturers and balancing the need to have a cleaner environment,three months’ period given to the manufacturers is reasonable. He alsourges 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 non-BS-VI compliant vehicle shouldbe permitted to be sold in the entire country after 01.04.2020. She hasdrawn our attention to the Report of the Parliamentary StandingCommittee (for short ‘the Committee’) dated 07.08.2018. This Reportmainly deals with National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi but there aresome references to the entire country. Some of the observations madeby the Committee need to be considered and taken note of. TheCommittee in Para 5.15 notes that the problem of air pollution is affectingall human beings and any leniency on the part of the Government intackling it will have a cascading effect on the health of the citizens.These observations have been made with specific reference to vehicularpollution and the need to ensure compliance of BS-VI norms with effectfrom 01.04.2020. There can be no two views that air pollution ishazardous to health. We may, also take note of certain observations ofthe Report of the Committee which show that one out of three childrenin Delhi suffers from respiratory problems. This is almost twice as highas compared to the city of Kolkata or rural areas. We may note that theWorld Health Organisation’s (WHO) database of more than 4,300 citiesshowed Indian cities of Gwalior, Allahabad, Raipur, Delhi, Ludhiana,Khanna, Varanasi and Patna as being among the most polluted in theworld[1]. Our attention has been drawn to various other documents whichclearly show the deleterious effects of pollution on health.The hazards

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

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof pollution and its ill effect on the health of the citizens especially childrenare not limited to the city of Delhi or the NCR of Delhi but affect all thecitizens of the country.

11. The Union Government has spent about Rs.30,000 crores tomanufacture BS-IV compliant fuel. We have been informed that anotherBRs. 30,000/- crores of the taxpayers’ money have been expended by theUnion to ensure that the fuel available in the country is BS-VI compliant.It is heartening to note that the Union, being concerned with the healthof the citizens and also taking note of the urgent need for a cleanenvironment, has taken steps to manufacture cleaner fuel. This fuel hasalready been made available in the National Capital Territory (NCT) ofCDelhi from 01.04.2018 and we have been informed that barring a fewplaces, it shall be available in the entire NCR from 01.04.2019. It willprobably be available in many parts of the country prior to 01.04.2020and the entire country will shift to BS-VI fuel from 01.04.2020.Obviously, the manufacture of clean fuel is being done in a phased mannerDbecause all the refineries cannot simultaneously start manufacturing cleanfuel. It is not as if on 01.04.2020 just by waving a magic wand the entirecountry will change to BS-VI compliant norms. If all the refineries andmanufacturers by taking note of the requirement to bring in BS-VI fuel,have introduced such fuel from 2018 and are introducing it in a phasedmanner in the entire country by 31.03.2020, we see no reason whyEmanufacturers of automobiles, two wheelers, three wheelers etc. cannotalso do so.

12. We may note that whereas in this Court SIAM has beencanvassing that the shift to BS-VI compliant vehicles is a long drawnout process requiring huge changes in technology, the very sameFmanufacturers are selling and exporting BS-VI compliant vehicles toEurope and other countries. With regard to two wheelers it has beenspecifically urged that the technological changes are immense. To counterthis argument the learned amicus curiae has drawn our attention to aPress Release issued by M/s. Hero MotoCorp., which is one of theGlargest motor manufacturers of two wheelers in the country. In thisPress Release issued in July 2017 it has been stated that M/s. HeroMotoCorp. has begun developing BS-VI compliant models and it aimsto introduce such products much before the timeline of 2020. Thecompany has also stated that it will manufacture only BS-VI fuel compliantvehicles well before the date stipulated by the authorities. If oneH

manufacturer can do this, we see no reason why other manufacturersof two wheelers cannot do so.

13. With regard to trucks and buses, from a news item publishedin the Financial Express dated 06.07.2018, it is apparent that Eicher isalready manufacturing trucks and buses which are not only BS-VIcompliant but BS-VI CNG compliant. Another manufacturer of heavyvehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland had, in August, 2018 through its subsidiaryOptare obtained an order to manufacture the world’s first electric doubledecker buses. The technology needed to manufacture such electric busesis much more advanced and difficult as compared to the technologicalchanges required to manufacture petrol and diesel vehicles which areBS-VI compliant. Similarly, TVS Motors on 07.08.2018 has issued apress note that it will be manufacturing BS-VI compliant vehicles muchahead of the deadline of 2020. Many members of SIAM in the AutoExpo held in February, 2018 have exhibited vehicles which aretechnologically much more advanced than BS-VI compliant vehicles.These manufacturers have not only asserted that they can manufactureelectric vehicles but also asserted that they are developing hydrogen cellfuel vehicles along with hybrid, electric and CNG vehicles.

14. We have mentioned these facts only to highlight that some ofthe manufacturers are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020 deadlinenot because they do not have the technology but because the use oftechnology will lead to increase in the cost of the vehicles which maylead to reduction in sales of the vehicles and ultimately their profit. Therecan be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if one has tochoose between health and wealth, keeping in view the expanded scopeof Article 21 of the Constitution, health of the teeming millions of thiscountry will have to take precedence over the greed of a few automobilemanufacturers. The automobile manufacturers must behave responsibly.We expected that keeping in view our earlier order, they would havethemselves volunteered to be BS-VI compliant by 31.03.2020.Unfortunately, this has not been the case with some of the manufacturersand they want to stretch on the timeline by a few days or months for noother reason but to make a little more money.

15. When we compare BS-VI fuel with BS-IV fuel, there is amassive improvement in environmental terms. Once BS-VI emissionnorms are enforced, there will be a 68% improvement in PM2.5 This is A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Anot 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, inthe NCR of Delhi, the BS-VI norms be applied for sale of vehicles from01.04.2020. We feel that it may not be practical to introduce BS-VIcompliant vehicles region-wise or city-wise. In our view, the BS-IVexperiment in this regard was not very successful. BS-VI compliantBvehicles are going to be more expensive than BS-IV compliant vehicles.People have a tendency to buy cheaper vehicle(s) even from aneighbouring city. We also strongly feel that the problem of pollution isnot limited to the NCR of Delhi but it is a problem which has engulfedthe entire country especially the major cities. India has the dubiousCdistinction of having 15 out of the 20 most polluted cities in the world.The pollution in Gwalior, Raipur & Allahabad is worse than Delhi. Thesituation is alarming and critical. It brooks no delay.

16. It is an established principle of law that the right to life, asenvisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the rightDto a decent environment[2]. It includes within its ambit the right of a citizento live in a clean environment[3]. With regard to vehicular traffic, thisCourt has issued a number of directions to ensure a clean environmentand reduce pollution[4]. It has been held that the right to clean environmentis 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 inherentEpart of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with humandignity becomes illusory in the absence of a healthy environment[6]. Theright to life not only means leading a life with dignity but includes withinits ambit the right to lead a healthy, robust life in a clean atmosphere freefrom pollution. Obviously, such rights are not absolute and have to co-Fexist with sustainable development. Therefore, if there is a conflictbetween health and wealth, obviously, health will have to be given 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,G(1998) 6 SCC 63, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Matter regarding emmission standardfor 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.H

precedence. When we are concerned with the health of not one citizenbut the entire citizenry including the future citizens of the country, thelarger public interest has to outweigh the much smaller pecuniary interestof the industry, in this case the automobile industry, especially when theentire wherewithal to introduce the cleaner technology exists.

17. It is therefore necessary to ensure that BS-VI compliance isuniform throughout the country so that even those areas of the countrywhich fortunately have not suffered the ills of extreme pollution are safein the future. The sale of automobiles and other vehicles is risingexponentially and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing dayby day. Therefore, even a day’s delay in enforcing BS-VI norms isgoing to harm the health of the people. We are dealing here with asituation where children and unborn children suffer from pollution andissues of inter-generational equity are involved. Do we as a society oras manufacturers of automobiles have a right to manufacture morepolluting vehicles when we have the technology to manufacture lesspolluting vehicles? The answer is obviously a big NO. If we were tofactor only economics even then it makes no economic sense to havemore polluting vehicles on the roads. The effect of pollution on theenvironment and health is so huge that it cannot be compensated in themarginal extra profits that the manufacturers might make. The amountspent on countering the ills of pollution such as polluted air, damagedlungs and the cost of healthcare far outweigh the profits earned.

18. It was urged on behalf of the manufacturers that there aremultiple sources of pollution and vehicles only contribute to 2% of thepollution. We are not in agreement with this submission because theReport of the Committee to which we have adverted hereinabove statesthat contribution of vehicles to ambient PM2.5 concentration during winterseason is 25% and in the summer season it contributes 9%. Even if wewere to accept the figures submitted by SIAM, we are of the view thatno step is too small when it comes to fighting pollution. Small steps toreduce pollution when taken together will lead to large scale reduction inpollution which will result in much cleaner air, which eventually will resultin a cleaner and better environment, healthier citizens and mostimportantly a healthier generation to come.

19. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pendingin court for a long time and also in view of the fact that it is because oforders of this Court that BS-IV and now BS-VI norms have been A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aintroduced from the dates which were not even thought of by theGovernment, we feel that we have to take suo moto notice of the Rules.At the outset, we may notice that sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague.It does not talk of sale of vehicles. It only mentions registration ofvehicles and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV normsup to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to 30.09.2020.BThis rule, in our view, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in asmuch as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond 31.03.2020and must be accordingly read down. Any extension of time in introducingthe new norms which is not absolutely necessary adversely impacts thehealth of the citizens and is, therefore, violative of Article 21 of theCConstitution of India. This Rule goes against the spirit of all the orderspassed earlier by this Court. In the month of March, 2017 we weredealing with a situation when BS-VI norms were to be made effectivethroughout the country with effect from 01.04.2020 and this Court haddirected that non- BS-IV compliant vehicles shall not be registered on orafter 01.04.2017. The situation in the present case is totally different.D31.03.2020 is almost 1 ½ years away. There is sufficient time for themanufacturers to change over to the new system and, therefore, we seeno reason why they should be given a window of three or six months forsale of accumulated vehicles. Every vehicle sold after the cut-off dateof 01.04.2020 is bound to cause more pollution and, therefore, theEmanufacturers, in our considered view, cannot be permitted to sell anynon-BS-VI compliant vehicle on or after 01.04.2020. On the one hand,the Government has been pro-active in spending huge amounts of moneyto move to the BS-VI technology, but on the other hand, the automobileindustry is coming up with a variety of untenable excuses just to delaythe introduction of BS-VI compliant vehicles by a few months. We, inFour judgment dated 13.04.2017, had clearly held “when the health ofmillions of our countrymen is involved, notification relating to commercialactivities ought not to be interpreted in a literal manner.” We have togive a purposive interpretation to notifications specially those dealingwith public health issues and even more so, when health not only of theGcitizens at present but also the citizens in the future is involved. There ismore than sufficient time for the manufacturers to manufacture BS-VIcompliant vehicles. They already have the technology to do so. Theautomobile industry must show the will, responsibility and urgency in thisregard.

H

M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

20. The Government has developed a policy of phasing out pollutingvehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting vehicles. Thishas been done in a gradual manner. Europe introduced Euro-IV fuel inthe year 2009 and Euro-VI standards in 2015. We are already manyyears behind them. We cannot afford to fall back further even by asingle day. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early aspossible.

21. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court underArticle 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub-rule 21 of Rule 115and direct that sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understoodto read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard BharatStage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effectfrom 01.04.2020.

Ankit Gyan Directions issued.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H