M. C.MEHTAversusUNION 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 ofsuch 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.
      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
708            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A           Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
             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.)
      Vijay K. Sondhi, Sujeeta Srivastava, Cauveri Birbal, Arnav Sanyal, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.
            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
             M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            709



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.
       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 C
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 D
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. E
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.
       6. It has been brought to our notice that on s•h January, 2016 the F
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 Solicitorst
General during the course of hearing and he stated that now from 1 G
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.        ·
I   M.C. Mehta v. Union oflrtdia, (2016) 4   sec 269                           H
710             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 6 S.C.R.


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. Thestmanufacturers of such
      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     st
                                             not be sold in India by any
  manufacturer or dealer on and from 1 April, 2017.
             (b) All the vehicle registering authorities under the Motor Vehiclesst
      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.