Holding

The notifications must be given a purposive interpretation to protect public health, prohibiting the sale and registration of BS‑III vehicles after 1 April 2017 except for those purchased before 31 March 2017, and the interveners' applications are dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the implementation of the National Auto Fuel Policy and Bharat Stage‑IV (BS‑IV) emission norms, which required that from 1 April 2017 no vehicle non‑compliant with BS‑IV could be sold or registered in India. Automobile manufacturers intervened, arguing that they could continue to sell their existing stock of BS‑III vehicles until the accumulated stock was exhausted. The Court held that, given the public‑health emergency posed by air pollution, the statutory notifications must be interpreted purposively, not literally, and that the cut‑off date of 1 April 2017 was binding. Consequently, only vehicles purchased on or before 31 March 2017 could be registered thereafter, and the manufacturers’ applications for relief were rejected. The Court dismissed all intervening applications.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation—literal or purposive—of the notifications governing the sale and registration of vehicles under the BS‑IV emission standards.
Whether the accumulated stock of BS‑III compliant vehicles could be sold and registered after 1 April 2017.
Whether the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to breathe less‑polluted air, justifying a restriction on commercial interests.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Air pollutionEnvironmental lawPublic healthRight to lifeArticle 21Bharat Stage emission normsVehicle emission standardsPurposive interpretationStatutory interpretationNational Auto Fuel Policy

Judgment

(2017] 6 S.C.R. 686

A M. C.MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(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)
B
lil

(Writ Petition(Civil) No.13029of1985)
APRIL 13, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
C Environment - Pollution- Air Pollution - National Auto Fuel
Policy, 2003- Implementation of Bharat Stage norms for vehicular
emissions gradually over a period of time in view vf phenomena/
rise in air pollution -Consequent prvhibitivn on sale and 1'egistrativn
of stock of vehicles not compliant with Bharat Stagi-IV emission
D standards from ]st April, 2017 - Plea of interveners;manufacturers
of such vehicles that they were permitted tu ma7mfacture such
vehicles upto 31st March, 2017 and hence may be &iven reasonable
time to dispose of such existing stock - Held: The implementation
of National Auto Fuel Policy was gradual - The intent of the
Government was clear that with progress in the implementation plan,
E the sale and registration of vehicles that were not Bharat Stage IV
complaint would eventually be prohibited with the cut-off date being
]st April, 2017 - The determination to switch over from Bharat Stage
Ill compliant vehicles to Bharat Stage IV compliant vehicles was
more than evident - Thus, in view of the history of the last decade
F leading to the introduction of Bharat Stage norms and their
implementation in a phased manner, the automobile industry had,
at the very minimum, a five-year warning to consider issues relating
to air pollution as a part of its manufacturing activities and revisit
its production strategy - But it did not do so - None of the
explanations given by interveners-manufacturers justify the failure
G of automobile· industry to increase the production of Bharat Stage
IV compliant vehicles, in spite of sufficient notice of a switch-over
- Admittedly, use of Bharat Stage IV autv fuel reduces particulate
matter in air by 80% as compared to Bharat Stage Ill auto fuel -
The health of millions of country men and women is important and
H cannot be compromisedfor the commercial interests ofthe automobile
686
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 687

industry - Art. 21 entitles them to breathe fresh air or at least less A
polluted air - Intervention applications by manufacturers, rejected
- Constitution of India - Art.21.
Interpretation of Statutes- Literal interpretation vis-a-vis
purposive interpretation - When - Plea of manufacturerslinterveners
that various notifications issued from time to time should be B
interpreted only in a literal manner allowing them to manufacture
Bharat Stage Ill compliant vehicles till 31st March, 2017 and
therefore, it is unreasonable to expect them to clear the stock of
such vehicles on or before 31st March, 2017 - Held: When the
health of millions of people in the country is involved, notifications
relating to commercial activities ought not to be interpreted in a C
literal manner - A purposive interpretation needs to be given to
notifications that directly concern public health issues having an
impact not only in the present but also in the future.
Dismissing the I.As. filed by manufacturers/interveners, the
Court D
HELD: 1.1 The National Auto Fuel Policy, 2003 was
announced by the Government of India taking into account, inter
alia, the rapid growth in the automobile industry and the increasing
number of vehicular population which had become "one of the
major causes in the phenomenal rise of air pollution in India." It E
was noted that air pollution is caused by several factors but the
dramatic rise in vehicular emissions has compounded the problem.
[Para 38) [699-F]
1.2 It is clear that the Government was quite determined
to introduce Bharat S-IV emission norms in respect of all vehicles
manufactured on and from 1st April, 2017 onwards. The F
implementation of this policy was gradual, starting with the NCR
Region and ten mega cities and this was extended from time to
time to other cities. The intent was made clear that with the
progress in the implementation plan there would be an increase
in the number of cities where the sale and registration of vehicles G
that are not BS-IV compliant would be prohibited with the cut-off
date being 1st April, 2017. This was coupled with the mandate to
manufacturers of two and three wheeler vehicles that they could
manufacture new models of vehicles on and after 1st April, 2016
only if they comply with BS-IV emission norms. The determination ·
to switch over from BS-III compliant vehicles to BS-IV compliant H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 6 S.C.R.

A vehicles was more than evident. To avoid any inconvenience,
the Government was quite clear that Bharat Stage IV auto fuel
would also be made available throughout the country. [Paras 17,
18) [694-F-H; 695-A-B)
1.3 Implicit in this nation-wide exercise was the possibility
B of the unexpected, that is, unsold stock of BS-III compliant
vehicles or the non-availability of BS-IV auto fuel. It is in this
context that the Government gave clarifications in 2005 and 2010
and suggested in March 2015 employing a rather amorphous
phrase, that the sale and registration of non-compliant vehicles
would be permitted till the 'accumulated stock' is exhausted.
c However, this was not and could not reasonably be .intended to
permit the interveners to continue manufacturing non-compliant
vehicles and then depend on grace for the disposal of accumulated
stock. Plan A was to switch over to BS-IV compliant vehicles and·
Plan B was to take care of unforeseen and emergent situations -
D it is not that the Government gave up implementation of Plan A.
[Para 19) [695-C-D)
1.4 The interveners had completely ignored the history of
the last decade or so which led to the introduction of Bharat Stage
norms and their implementation in a phased manner. [Para 38)
[699-E)
E 1.5 The automobile industry had, at the very minimum, a
five-year warning that it would have to consider issues relating
to air pollution as part of its manufacturing activities and
production strategy and thereafter the industry had more than
five years to plan out its activities and revisit the strategy, but
F did not do so. On the contrary the automobile industry gave a
variety of excuses for not making adjustments for the benefit of
the people of the country. [Paras 44, 45) [701-F-G)
1.6 None of the explanations given justify the failure of the
automobile industry to increase the production of BS-IV compliant
G vehicles, in spite of sufficient notiee of a switch-over and reduce
the production of BS-III compliant vehicles. The attempt, sadly,
seems to have been to push all concerned to the wall by putting
before them afait accompli situation and by ignoring the concerns
of millions of our country men and women who are entitled to
breathe fresh air or at least breathe less polluted air. [Para 45)
H (702-B-C]
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 689

1.7 When the health of millions of people in our country is A
involved, notifications relating to commercial activities ought not
to be interpreted in a literal manner. The only option in such
eventualities is to give a purposive interpretation to notifications
that directly concern public health issues which have an impact
not only in the present but also in the future. The health of every B
person in our country is important and cannot be compromised,
even in the smallest measure, for the commercial interests of
the automobile industry or of any industry for that matter. [Paras
46, 47] [702-E, G)
1.8 The entire issue must be looked at as a matter of public
health and as a matter of public concern. It is a matter of common C
knowledge that polluted air can lead to a variety of health
problems· and this is evident from a .casual visit to the website of
the CPCB and the World Health Organization. Admittedly, the
use of BS-IV auto fuel reduces particulate matter in the air by
80% as compared to BS-Ill auto fuel. [Para SO) [703-E-F] D
1.9 Additionally, if the entire scheme laid out by the
Government- of discouraging the manufacture of polluting
vehicles and gradually phasing them out coupled with their
gradual replacement with fuel efficient vehicles, availability of
cleaner and greener fuel and compliance with fuel emission norms
is appreciated in a much larger context rather than on a E
notification by notification basis - the objective behind the scheme
would be apparent. The Government could very well have issued
one single notification way back in 2010 that with effect from 1st
April, 2017 the manufacture, sale and registration of vehicles
that do not comply with BS-IV emission norms would be F
prohibited. It did not do so to enable all concerned, particularly
the auto industry and marketing strategists to gradually manage
their affairs rather than subject them to a sudden future shock.
The scheme of a gradual phase-out is now sought to be perverted
through a literal interpretation of each notification, unfortunately,
for a commercial benefit rather than being appreciated in a larger G
canvas for the benefit of society as a whole. [Para 52) [704-B-D]
CNIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 487/2017, I. A.
No. 491/2017, I. A. No. 494/2017, I. A. No. 489/2017 and I. A. No.
495/2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A Under Article 32 of the Constituion of India.
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.(AC), Siddhartha
Chowdhury,A.D.N. Rao, Ms.Aparajita Singh, (ACs), S. WasimA. Qadri,
ZaidAli, GS. Makkar, Kaushik Poddar, Gautam Singh, Ms. Snehil Sonam
Singh, Ms. lsha Singh, Tarun Gulati, Neil Hildreth, Rahul Jain, Kishore
B Kuna!, Ankur Taiwar, 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 & Co.),
C Vijay Panjwani, Sandeep Narain (for M/s. S. Narain & Co.) Vijay K.
Sondhi, Sujeeta Srivastava, Cauveri Birbal, Arnav Sanyal, Advs. for the
appearing parties
Petitioner-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D MADAN B. LOKUR, J. l. We had heard I.A. No. 494 of2017
along with other I.As and had passed an order on 29th March, 2017 ..
The operative portion of the order is as follows:
"Accordingly, for detailed reasons that will fo1Iow, we direct that:
(a) On and from l st April, 2017 such vehicles that ar; not BS-IV
E compliant shall not be sold in India by any manufacturer or dealer,
that is to say that such vehicles whether two wheeler, three
wheeler, four wheeler or commercial vehicles will not be sold in
India by any manufacturer or dealer on and from l st April, 2017.
(b) All the vehicle registering authorities under the Motor Vehicles
F Act, 1988 are prohibited for registering such vehicles on and from
l st April, 2017 that do not meet BS-IV emission standards, except
on proof that such a vehicle has already been sold on or before
31 sl March, 2017."
2. We now give our reasons for the above order.
G Recent history
3. Sometime in 2003 the National Auto Fuel Policy was announced
by the Government of India for the implementation of Bharat Stage
norms for vehicular emissions. ·This Policy was based on the
recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee constituted in 2001. It is
H not necessary to detail the Policy except to say that it provides a road
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 691
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

map for achieving vehicular emission norms.over a period of time and A
the corresponding fuel quality upgradation requirements. A road map for
vehicular emission norms for new vehicles was drawn up and those
cities facing serious pollution levels were brought under a separate road
map for quicker adoption of emission norms.
4. In the process of implementing the Bharat Stage vehicular B
emission norms, or the BS norms for short, a few communications were
issued concerning the registration of motor vehicles. Our attention was
first drawn to a communication dated 23rd March, 2005 issued by the
Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways of the Government
of India which related to the registration of motor vehicles from l st
April, 2005. This was in the context of the introduction ofBS-ID complia11t C
vehicles in the cities of Delhi, Ahmedabad, :Elangalore, Mumbai, Pune
and Kolkata. The communication clarified that only BS-III compliant
vehicles manufactured on or after l st April, 2005 could be registered in
these cities. However, BS-I and BS-II compliant vehicles could be
registered in the rest of the areas of the States and also in these cities D
for some time till the accumulated stock is exhausted.
5. The relevant extract of the communication dated 23rd March,
2005 stated as follows:
"It is clarified that the gazette notifications in this regard clearly
mention that these norms shall be applicable to only vehicles
manufactured on or after l st April, 2005. Bharat Stage II and E
Bharat Stage I compliant vehicles manufactured prior to this date
would, therefore, be eligible for registration in the above named
cities and rest of the areas of the States respectively for sometime
after 1st April, 2005 till the accumulated stock is exhausted."
6. If we examine the text, it is not very clear how long after 1st F·
April, 2005 would the registration of BS-I and BS-II compliant vehicles
be permitted except that it would be till the. accumulated stock is
exhausted, that is for an indefinite period. Nothing of value can be derived
from this communication but it is referred to only since learned counsel
for the manufacturers and dealers of motor vehicles (for short the G
interveners) suggested that notifications that amend the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 and communications issued in the context ofBS-
IV compliant vehicles, which are the subject matter of the present
discussion, should be similarly interpreted while leamedAmicus submitted
that we should look to the purpose of the National Auto Fuel Policy as
also the overall objective in introducing Bharat Stage emission norms. H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r201116 s.c.R.

A 7. A second communication brought to our notice was issued by
the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of the Government of
India on 5th April 20 IO relating to the registration offour wheeled vehicles
with effect from Ist April, 20 l 0. This communication is somewhat similar
to the earlier communication of 23rd March, 2005 and drew attention to
a notification dated 9th February, 2009 amending the Central Motor
B
Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The
notification laid down the Mass Emission Standards (BS-III) for two
wheeler vehicles and three wheeler vehicles manufactured on and from
I st April, 20 I0. It also laid down the Mass Emission Standards (BS-
IV) for M and N category four-wheeled vehicles manufactured on or
·C after 1st April, 2010. The notification required that BS-ill emission norms
would be applicable to all vehicles manufactured on or after l st April,
20IO. However, BS-IV emission norms would be applicable in the
National Capital Region and ten other. mega cities, that is, Mumbai,
Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Hyderabad including
Secunderabad, Kanpur, Pune, Surat and Agra in respect of four-wheeled
D vehicles inanufactured on or after 1st April, 20 I0 except four wheeler
transport vehicles plying on Inter State Permits, National Permits or All
India Tourist Permits.
8. The communication dated 5th April, 20 IO clarified that BS-III
compliant vehicles could be registered in the abovementioned Region
E and cities even after I st April, 2010 till the accumulated stock is
exhausted. To get over the uncertainty of determining the accumulated
stock, the Principal Secretaries (Transport) and Transport Commissioners
of the concerned States were expected to get details of BS-IH compliant
vehicles in the accumulated stock from the concerned dealers and
.F manufacturers. In any event, the period for registration of such vehicles
was again left indeterminate and only the accumulated stock was identified
or quantified.
9. In this background, a further amendment was carried out to
sub-rule (15) of Rule llS of the Rules on 21st May, 2010 by adding a
proviso to the effect that BS-IV emission norms would be applicable in
G the cities of Sholapur and Lucknow in respect of four wheeler vehicles
manufactured on or after 1st June, 20 I 0 except four wheeler transport
vehicles plying on Inter-State Permits or National Permits or All India
Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of the said cities. Yet another
amendment was carried out on 16th July, 2014 adding a proviso to sub-
H rule (15) of Rule ll 5 of the Rules to the effect that BS-IV emission
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 693
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

norms were made applicable to several other cities in respect of four- A
wheeled vehicles manufactured on or after I st October, 2014 except
four-wheeled transport vehicles plying on Inter-State Permits or National
Permits or All India Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of those cities .•
10. A similar amendment was carried out on 14th July, 2015
including some other cities-where BS-IV emission norms would be B
apJ>licable in respect of four wheeler vehicles manufactured on or after
15th July, 2015 and finally an amendment was carried on 19th August,
2015 in respect of several other cities in respect of four-wheeled vehicles
manufactured on or after I st October, 2015 and I st April, 2016.
Eventually, by an amendment carried out on 19th August, 2015 it was
mandated that BS-IV norms would come into force all over the country C
in respect of four-wheeled vehicles manufactured on or afteJ I st April,
2017.
Two and three wheeler vehicles
11. The application of BS-IV norms in respect of two wheeler
and three wheeler vehicles was somewhat different. As mentioned above, D
BS-III emission norms were made applicable to two and three wheeler
vehicles on and from I st April, 2010.

- 12. Thereafter sub-rule (16) was inserted in Rule 115 of the Rules
on 4th July, 2014 to the effect that new models of two wheeler vehicles
manufactured on and after I st April, 2016 shall comply with B~-IV E
emission norms and existing models oftwo wheeler vehicles would comply
with BS-IV emission norms from I st April, 2017.
13. In respect of three wheeler vehicles, sub-rule (17) was inserted
in Rule ll5 of the Rules on 12th June, 2015 to the effect that BS-IV
standards would be applicable to new models of three wheelers F
manufactured on or after 1st April, 2016 and for existing models of three
wheelers manufactured on or after 1st April, 2017.
View of the Government
14. It seems that there still remained some confusion with regard
to the interpretation of the various notifications relating to the registration G
of vehicles conforming to BS-III emission norms. This confusion partly ·
arose from a response submitted by the Environment Protection Control
Authority (for short EPCA) constituted by a notification issued under
the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. To clear the
air, so to say, the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas filed an affidavit H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A in I.A. No.345 of2014 on or about 27th March, 2015 to place on record
certain additional documents on behalf of the Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change. One of the additional documents was the
comments of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in response to
issues raised by EPCA. It was stated therein that the Government has
fully implemented the recommendations of the Auto Fuel Policy, 2003.
B
In fact it has decided to go beyond the recommendations made therein
on a voluntary basis by extending BS-IV auto fuel to 50 more cities by
March 2015 with preference to most polluted cities, State capitals and
cities with million plus population subject to logistical constraints. It was.
further stated that out of these 50 cities, BS-IV auto fuel has already
c commenced s':Kply to 26 cities and the remaining 24 cities would be
covered by 15 March, 201 7.
15. It was clear therefore that as far back as in March, 2015 the
Government was prepared to walk the extra mile in ensuring that BS-IV
auto fuel is readily available at least in the mega cities.
D 16. Earlier, an office memorandum was issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways on 3rd March, 2015 (apparently in
response to the issues raised by EPCA) wherein it was stated that though
the intent is to have only BS-IV compliant vehicles manufactured after
l st April, 2017 but the inventory of old vehicles manufactured by 31st
March, 2017 would need to be 'protected' and registered. It was clarified
E that there is no bar on the sale or registration of vehicles produced prior
to the above time lines and that this was the procedure followed when
the country migrated to BS-II and BS-III emission norms in 2001 and
2005.
The perspective
F 17. To place the matter in perspective, it is clear that the
Government was quite determined to introduce BS-IV emission norms
in respect of all vehicles manufactured on and from 1st April, 2017
onwards. The implementation of this policy was gradual, starting with
the NCR Region and ten mega cities and this was extended from time to
G time to other cities. The intent was made clear that with the progress in
the implementation plan there would be an increase in the number of
cities where the sale and registration of vehicles that are not BS-IV
compliant would be prohibited. This was as broad a hint as any that the
sale and registration of vehicles that were not BS-IV compliant would
be eventually prohibited with the cut-off date being 1st April, 2017. This
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 695
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

was coupled with the mandate to manufacturers of two and three wheeler A
vehicles that they could manufacture new models of vehicles on and
after l st April, 2016 only if they comply with BS-IV emission norms.
The determination to switch over from BS-III compliant vehicles to BS-
IV compliant vehicles was more than evident.
18. To avoid any inconvenience to anybody, the Government was B
quite clear that BS-IV auto fuel would also be made available throughout
the country.
19. Implicit in this nation-wide exercise was the possibility of the
unexpected, that is, unsold stock of BS-III compliant vehicles or the
non-availability ofBS-IV auto fuel. It is in this context that the Government
gave clarifications in 2005 and 2010 and suggested in March 2015 C
employing a rather amorphous phrase, that the sale and registration of
non-compliant vehicles would be permitted till the 'accumulated stock'
is exhausted. However, this was not and could not reasonably be intended
to permit the interveners to continue manufacturing non-compliant
vehicles and then depend on grace for the disposal of accumulated stock. D
Plan A was to switch over to BS-IV compliant vehicles and Plan B was
to take care of unforeseen and emergent situations - it is not that the
Government gave up implementation of Plan A.
20. This is more than clear from the fact that when this writ petition
was taken up for consideration on 5th January, 2016, it was submitted E
by the learned Solicitor General that BS-IV fuel would be available by
l st April, 2017 all over the country. This submission is recorded in M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India.'.
Recommendation to Parliament
21. In the meanwhile, the Standing Committee of Parliament on
F
Petroleum & Natural Gas also expressed concern over the phenomenal
rise of air pollution and made some recommendations. We are
mentioning this only in the limited context of indicating the concern of
the Executive earlier expressed and now the Legislature also over issues
of air pollution.
22. The Standing Committee submitted its Fifth Report to the Lok G
Sabha Secretariat. This was presented to the Lok Sabha on 7th May,
2015 and was laid in the Raj ya Sabha on the same date. In the introductory
paragraphs, it is stated by the Standing Committee as follows:

I (2016) 4 SCC 269 para 36.
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R..

A "Greenhouse gases induced· global warming and subsequent
climate change are some of the perils threatening the survival of
present day generation. The process of industrialization and
development has caused innumerable changes in global climate.
These climatic changes, which have occurred principally through
the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel irt the
B
transportation sector and automobile industry have led to an
increase in the concentration of green house gas,es such as Carbon
Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Hydro Flouro Carbons in
the atmosphere, thus disrupting the ecological and social systems
across the globe.
c 1.2 The rapid growth in automobile industry and the increasing
number of vehicular population have become one of the major
causes in the phenomenal rise ofair pollution in India. Though air
pollution is caused by several factors, the dramatic rise in the
vehicular emissions has compounded the problem."
D 23. In the first recommendation made by the Standing Committee
in its Report, it was noted that the Auto Fuel Policy of 2003 and the
Expert Committee Report on Auto Fuel Vision & Policy, 2025 (chaired
by Shri Saumitra Chaudhury, the then Member of the Planning
Commission) are vital public policy instruments at the disposal of the
Government to address growing vehicular pollution in the country: The
E Committee therefore recommended that the concerned Ministry should
chalk out an action plan for the implementation of the Expert Committee
recommendations as per the time line suggeste~ or wherever possible
earlier and adhere to the policy in letter and spirit. ·
24. The recommendation )Vas made in the context of the Standing
F Committee having noted that the Expert Committee had recommended
a detailed road map for auto fuel quality till 2025 for the country. The
Standing Committee appreciated the comprehensive coverage of various
issues by the Expert Committee in its Report such as fuel quality, demand
and supply of fuel, infrastructure and logistics of fuel quality related
projects, promotion of alternate fuels, vehicular technologies, emission
G norms, health issues, ambient air quality, reduction of pollution from in-
use vehicles and fiscal measures for funding requisite up-gradation of oil
refineries.
25. At this stage we must record that the learned Solicitor General
stated before us that the Central Government through its refineries had
H incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 30,000 crores to make available
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 697
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

BS-N auto fuel from 1st April, 2017 all over the country. This was ·a A
reaffirmation, confirmation and reiteration of the submission made on
5th January, 2016 that BS-IV fuel would be available by l st April, 2017
all over the country. In other words, we take it that the Government was
and is pro-actively supporting the reduction of vehicular pollution by
controlling the emission norms and complying with the Bharat Stage B
standards keeping in view the auto fuel policy and the Report of the
Expert Committee referred to by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Proximate developments
26. To revert to the narration of facts, it may be stated that more
than a year after the 5th January, 2016 submission, EPCA held a meeting
with various stakeholders on 19th October, 2016 for reducing vehicular C
emission norms. The minutes of that meeting record that the Ministry of
Surface Transport and Highways as well as the Ministry of Petroleum
and Industrial Gas intimated that BS-N standards had been notified and
introduced in key cities in 2010. Ergo, the country was well prepared
for a nation-wide roll out ofBS-N auto fuel. D
27. In the meeting, the representatives of the Society of Indian
Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) assured that the automobile industry
will not manufacture any vehicle on and from l st April, 2017 which did
not meet BS-N emission norms. Keeping this in mind and the progression
over the last more than a decade to control emission norms, EPCA clarified
that there would be no sale or registration of non-BS-IV compliant E
vehicles from 1st April, 201 7 and that this should be communicated to all
manufacturers so that they have sufficient notice of about six months to
plan their production and sales. In response, the representatives of SIAM
expressed the view that it would be difficult for the automobile
manufacturers to ensure compliance. EPCA however insisted that all F
manufacturers should ensure that the BS-III compliant stock of vehicles
is exhaUlited before 1st April, 2017 since BS-N compliant vehicles reduce
pollution by about 80% in particulate matter as compared to BS-III
compliant vehicles.
28. On 1st December, 2016 SIAM wrote to the Central Pollution G
Control Board (CPCB) confirming that only BS-N compliant vehicles
would be manufactured from 1st April, 2017. However, it was submitted
that EPCA's direction that there should be no sale or registration ofBS-
III compliant vehicles from 1st April, 2017 is at variance with the
notifications issued by the Government oflndia. It was also mentioned
in the communication that the sale of BS-III compliant vehicles would H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A depend on market forces and that it is beyond the control of vehicle
manufacturers to ensure that the entire stock of BS-III compliant vehicles
is exhausted by 1st April, 201 7.
29. This communication was responded to by the CPCB on 1oth
December, 2016 indicating that EPCA had called the meeting on 19th
.B October, 2016 only to ensure that stock of BS-III compliant vehicles are
exhausted before l st April, 2017 for the reasons mentioned in the minutes
of that meeting. It was reiterated that BS-IV auto fuel would be available
all over the country from l st April, 20 l 7.
30. Thereafter, there were communications exchanged between
EPCA and CPCB and SIAM wherein it was reiterated thatthe stock of
c BS-III compliant vehicles should be exhausted by 31st March, 20 l 7 while
SIAM stated that it would not be possible to exhaust that stock.
31. In this background, one of the members of SIAM, that is,
Bajaj Auto Limited filed I.A. No. 487 of 2017 wherein it is prayed that
an order may be passed by this Court directing the Union of India and/or
D EPCA to issue a communication to all vehicle manufacturers that on or
after 1st April, 2017 vehicles that are not BS-IV compliant would not be
manufactured, sold or registered across the country.
32. Notice was issued in the above application on 20th March,
2017 which led to a spate of intervention applications by some of the
·E automobile manufactures, by SIAM and by an association of dealers of
automobile vehicles. Learned Amicus also filed an independent
application being I.A. No. 494 of 2017 wherein it was prayed that on
and from l st April, 2017 only such vehicles that comply with BS-IV
standards shall be manufactured, sold and registered across the country.
33. As mentioned above, we heard all the learned counsel and
F
passed the order extracted above on 29th March, 2017.
The issue
34. A perusal of the facts leading up to presentation of the !As
before us leads us to the simple question whether the accumulated stock
of BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st March,
G 2017 could be sold and registered after 1st April, 2017.
35. It appeared to us that if someone was to make a bona fide
purchase of a BS-III compliant vehicle on or immediately before 31st
March, 2017 it might not be possible for that individual to have the vehicle
registered before the cut-off date. Therefore, we felt it reasonable to
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 699
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

permit the registration of BS-III compliant vehicles purchased on proof A
on or before 31st March, 2017 from 1st April, 2017 and have ordered
accordingly.
36. Accordingly, the issue that remains for consideration is whether
the stock of BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st
March, 2017 can be sold from 1st April, 2017 onwards.. B
Submissions and discussion
37. The primary contention oflearned counsel for the interveners
manufacturing and dealing in BS-III compliant vehicles is that in terms
of the notifications issued from time to time, the manufacture of BS-III
compliant vehicles was permitted up to 31st March, 2017 except new C
models of two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles. Consequently, the
interveners were entitled to carry out such manufacturing activities and
in doing so they had not violated any prohibition or any law. Therefore,
it would be unreasonable to expect them to clear the stock of BS-III
compliant vehicles on or before 31st March, 2017 or to prohibit the sale
of such stock on and from l st April, 2017. In this context it was submitted D
that it was erroneous for the learned Amicus to suggest that the
'manufacture' of BS-III compliant vehicles till 31st March, 2017 should
be read in a manner which would result in a prohibition on and from l st
April, 2017 on the sale and registration of such vehicles or to prejudicially
affect the commercial interest of the interveners.
E
38. In our opinion, the interveners have completely ignored the
history of the last a decade or so which led to the introduction of Bharat
Stage norms and their implementation in a phased manner. The Auto
Fuel Policy was announced by the Government oflndia, as mentione.d
by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, taking into account, inter
alia, the rapid growth in the automobile industry and the increasing number F
of vehicular population which had become "one of the major causes in
the phenomenal rise of air pollution in India." The Standing Committee
noted that air pollution is caused by several factors but the dramatic rise
in vehicular emissions has compounded the problem.
39. It is qitite evident therefore that given the recent history and G
unfolding of events, it was incumbent upon the automobile industry to
modulate its views and give secondary importance to commercial profits
and take pro-active steps to reduce vehicular pollution. It seems that the
automobile industry was quite sanguine that its desire for selling
accumulated stock of BS-III compliant vehicles even after 1st April,
H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

·A 2017 would be acceded to. This is evident from the past practice when
it had become necessary, in one sense, for the Government oflndia to
virtually submit to the commercial interests of the automobile industry
'by permitting the registration ofBS-III compliant vehicles in some cities
while permitting the sale and registration of BS-I and BS-II compliant
vehicles in other cities even after the cut-off date of 1st April, 2005 till
B the accumulated stock is exhausted.
40. Five years later the Government of India had again to submit
to the commercial interests of the automobile industry when it was
required to issue a communication on 5th April, 2010 permitting the
registration and therefore the sale of BS-III compliant vehicles even
C after l st April, 20 l 0 till the accumulated stock is exhausted.
41. No one knows, nor were we told how long these accumulated
stock were expected to last or actually lasted. But the fact of the matter
is that we would have expected the automobile industry to have shown
some responsibility and taken a positive approach to reduce vehicular
D pollution and ensure that non-conforming vehicles are not manufactured
so that air pollution in the country does not continue unabated and to
take measures to curtail the phenomenal rise in air pollution recognized
by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
42. Some responsible manufacturers, especially Maruti Suzuki being
E the market leader in four wheeler vehicles, did take the necessary 'down
to business' approach and we were told that it had switched over to
manufacturing BS-IV compliant vehicles quite a few years ago. Other
manufacturers of four wheeler vehicles also took similar steps, but
somewhat tentatively. ·
F 43. Notwithstanding this, several members of SIAM continued
rather unfortunately to take it easy and (as the figures filed before us by
SIAM suggest) though there was a decrease in the production of BS-III
compliant vehicles between January, 2016 and December, 2016 that is
for the entire calendar year, unfortunately, there was only a marginal
increase for the corresponding period in the manufacture of BS-IV
G compliant vehicles. However, there was a sudden spurt of manufacturing
BS-IV compliant vehicles in February, 2017 and a decline in the
manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles except commercial vehicles
- indicative of a lack of planning and perhaps real concern over a
prolonged past period. The production figures of some of the major
H manufacturers are given bel~w in the table:
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 701
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

PRODUCTION OF VEIDCLES A
(as supplied by SIAM)
Name of January December February January Dttember February
Company 2016 2016 2017 2016 2016 2017
BS-III BS-Ill BS-111 BS-IV BS-IV BS-IV

Two WHEELERS
Hem 5,32,o?8 2,98,839 63,026 NIL 33,o?8 4,40,275
Motor B
Coro Ltd.
Honda 3,63,805 l,91,534 2,30,022 JJ,644 7,583 1,45,217
Motorcycle
& Scooters
India Pvt.
Ltd.
India 50,077 45,017 120 2,880 3,800 66,499
Ya ha ma
Motors
TVS 1,65,956 1,48,519 22,049 NIL NIL 1,35,448
c
Motor
Company
Ltd.

TllREE WHEELERS

Mahindra 4,204 3,530 3060 NIL NIL 52
&
Mahindra D
Ltd.
Piaggio 12,730 7,287 4,388 NIL NIL 6,366
Vehicles
Pvt. Ltd.

MEDIUM AND ffEAVV TRUCKS, 0TllER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
Ashok 10,935 9,402 11,528 642 1,661 1,998
Le viand
Mahindra 12,001 8,708 !l,287 2,600 4,605 6,096
&
E
Mahindrn .

Tata 27,507 13,734 22,915 3,627 5,004 7,783
Motors

44. The sum and substance of the discussion is that the automobile
industry had, at the very minimum, a five-year warning that it would
have to consider issues· relating to air pollution as a part of its· F
manufacturing activities and production strategy and thereafter the
industry had more than five years to plan out its activities and revisit the
strategy, but did not do so.
45. On the contrary the automobile industry gave a variety of
excuses for not making adjustments for the benefit of the people of the
G
country. Similarly, efforts of the Government to regulate and reduce
vehicular emissions were not given the support that they deserved,
including taking advantage of time granted for phased introduction of
BS-IV complaint vehicles as per the Government policy. It was submitted
during the hearing that the sale of BS-ill compliant vehicles would depend
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 6 S.C.R.

A on market forces; at one time it was submitted that demonetization (which
took place in November, 2016) upset their plans; at another time it was
submitted that some models are slow moving and therefore could not be
sold and yet at another time it was submitted that weak market conditions
did not make it possible for the industry to dispose of the existing BS-III
B compliant stock. None of these explanations justify the failure of the
automobile industry to increase the production of BS-IV compliant
vehicles, in spite of sufficient notice of a switch-over and reduce the
production of BS-III compliant vehicles. The attempt, sadly, seems to
have been to push all concerned to the wall by putting before them afait
accomp/i situation and by ignoring the concerns of millions of our country
C men and women who are entitled to breathe fresh air or at least breathe
less polluted air. As is apparent from the figures relating to the production
of BS-III and BS-IV compliant vehicles supplied to us, this activity and
inactivity has been entirely for commercial benefits and to avoid the cost
ofupgrading available technology.
D Literal versus purposive interpretation
46. Learned counsel for the interveners sought to impress upon
us that we should interpret the various notifications issued from time to
time only in a literal manner. When the health of millions of people in our
country is involved, notifications relating to commercial activities ought
not to be interpreted in a literal manner. The only option in such
E
eventualities is to give a purposive interpretation to notifications that
directly concern public health issues which have an impact not only in
the present but also in the future. We were informed that the life of
vehicles is in the range of l 0 and 15 years. While the development versus
environment paradigm could be debated upon, there cannot be any debate
F in the development versus public health paradigm.
4 7. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the existing
stock of BS-III compliant vehicles is a miniscule percentage of the overall
number of vehicles on the roads in the country and if that miniscule
number is brought on the roads by way of sale, it would only result in a
G marginal increase in air pollution. With respect, this submission cannot
be accepted. The health of every person in our country is important and
we are more than reluctant to accept any submission that the health of
the people can be compromised, even in the smallest measure, for the
commercial interests of the automobile industry or of any industry for
·that matter. Additionally, given that the life of such vehicles would be at
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 703
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

least 10 years (as submitted by the interveners) the concern is not only A
for the present population of the country but for future generations who
also have an entitlement to breathe pollution free air. This is what
sustainable development and inter-generational equity is all about. Do
we really want to leave behind drastically polluted air to be breathed in
this case at least for the next between 10 and 15 years?
B
48. We must also point out that it was brought to our notice by the
learned Solicitor-General that the Government of India has expended,
through its refineries, an amount of about Rs. 30,000 crores for
implementing the Auto Fuel Policy along with the recommendations of
the Expert Committee in making BS-IV quality fuel available positively
by 1st April, 2017 in keeping with the stated objective of 'One country- c
One fuel' in the shortest possible time. Surely, such a huge investment
from the tax payers earnings cannot be defeated only with a view to
subserve the interest of the automobile industry which, as discussed by
the Parliamentary Standing Committee, has become one of the major
causes in the phenomenal rise ofair pollution in India. D
49. Given this background, it is not at all surprising that learned
Amicus vehemently contended that the various notifications do not
deserve to be given a literal meaning but a purposeful interpretation.
What is the mischief sought to be remedied and how best is it possible to
remedy that mischief? To recall what lyricist and singer Bob Dylan had
to say - the answer is blowing in the wind. E
50. Learned Amicus is right that the entire issue must be looked
at in a particular context, as a matter of public health and as a matter of
public concern. It is a matter of common knowledge that polluted air
can lead to a variety of health problems and this is evident from a casual
visit to the website of the CPCB and the World Health Organization. F
Admittedly, the use of BS-IV auto fuel reduces particulate matter in the
air by 80% as compared to BS-III auto fuel. Under these circumstances,
it cannot be said that learnedAmicus erroneously seeks a prohibition on
the sale and registration of BS-III compliant vehicles on and from 1st
April, 2017.
G
51. It is worth noting that the WHO reported that as urban air
quality declines, the risk of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic
and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma, increases. 2 Similarly,
the CPCB says in its Annual Report 2014-15 that "Scientific studies
2
http://www.who.int/phe/health topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/ (Accessed on
5th April, 2017). H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201116 s.c:R.

A have indicated links between fine particulate matter and numerous health
problems including bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms
such as shortness of breath and painful breathing."3
52.Additionally, ifthe entire scheme laid out by the Government-
of discouraging the manufacture of polluting vehicles and gradually
B phasing theQl out coupled with their gradual replacement with fuel
efficient vehicles, availability of cleaner and greener fuel and compliance
with. fuel emission norms is appreciated in a much larger context rather
than on a notification by notification basis - the objective behind the
scheme would be apparent. The Government could very well have issued
one single notification way back in 2010 that with effect from 1st April,
c 2017 the manufacture, sale and registration of vehicles that do not comply
with BS-N emission norms would be prohibited. It did not do so to
enable all concerned, particularly the auto industry and marketing
strategists to gradually manage their affairs rather than subject them to
a sudden future shock. The scheme of a gradual phase-out is now sought
D to be perverted through a literal interpretation of each notification,
unfortunat~ly, for a commercial benefit rather than being appreciated in
a larger canvas for the benefit of society as a whole.
53. There is no doubt, therefore, that the various notifications issued
and the amendments made to the Rules must be read cumulatively in a
.E purposive manner with the objective of enhancing or protecting further
deterioration of the quality of the air we breathe from a continuing and
continuous onslaught of pollutants.
Office memorandum of 3rd March, 2015
54. In was submitted by learned counsel for the interveners that
F inherent in the manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles was their
entitlement to sell such vehicles any time on or after 1st April, 2017 until
the accumulated stock is exhausted. Given the experience of the past,
they legitimately expected that they would be allowed to clear the
accumulated stock. We questioned learned counsel for the interveners
G on the time required for disposal of the accumulated stock. No one gave
any definite answer - the answers varied from about 5 and 6 months to
one year and hedged in with conditions dependent upon market forces
and slow moving models. Perhaps Siri would have given a more definite
answer.
' http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/AnnualReports/AnnualReport 55 Annual Report 2014-
. H . 15.pdf{Accessed on 5th April, 2017).
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 705
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

55. In this context, reference was made to the most recent office A
memorandum dated 3rd March, 2015 issued by.the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways. It was submitted that the office memorandum
made clear the intention of the various notifications, namely, to ensure
the manufacture ofonly BS-IV compliant vehicles after l st April, 2017
and at the same time ensure that BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured B
on or before 31st March, 2017 are protected and registered. This is
clear from the statement in the office memorandum that there is no bar
on vehicles produced prior to the above time lines, meaning thereby that
BS-III compliant vehicles manufactured on or before 31st March, 2017
could be sold or registered keeping in view the past practice.
56. In our opinion, the only reasonable construction of the office C
memorandum (issued two years ago) would be that subject to the
occurrence of some extraordinary or unforeseen event, should it become
.necessary to sell and register BS-III compliant vehicles on or after 1st
April, 201 7 limited exceptions on a case to case basis could be claimed
and considered. The office memorandum cannot reasonably be D
interpreted as a carte blanche to the automobile industry to continue
the manufacture of BS-III compliant vehicles till the very last day and
then plead the necessity of clearing accumulated stock of BS-III vehicles.
This would make a mockery of the efforts of all concerned in regulating
vehicular emissions and virtually enabling the interveners to emasculate
an important component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of E
the Constitution, namely, the entitlement of millions of our.country men
and women to brea,he less polluted air and ignore public health issues in
conducting their business. We cannot be asked to shut our eyes to the
phenomenal rise in pollution levels in the country.
Blaming EPCA F
57. It was also contended by learned counsel for the interveners
that the automobile industry (as indeed any other industry) needs stability,
certainty and predictability in the regulatory regime. This is undoubtedly
true but that stability, certainty and predictability was apparent from the
time the National Auto Fuel Policy was announced in 2003. Rather than G
admit responsibility for a lack of concern of publlc health issues, some of
the interveners have sought to blame EPCA for its failure to approach
the Government of India to seek amendments to the notifications issued
from time to time and to incorporate a prohibition on the sale and
registration of BS-III compliant vehicles on or after l st April, 2017. H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.

A Unfortunately, finger-pointing and blame games do not lead anyone
anywhere and deserve to be discouraged.
58. In any event, the fact is that EPCA had convened a meeting
of all stakeholders on 19th October, 2016 and had brought to the notice
of the representatives of SIAM that there would be no sale and
B registration of BS-III compliant vehicles from 1st April, 2017 and that
this should be communicated to all manufacturers. The clear intention of
EPCA was to give sufficient notice of almost six months to enable the
automobile industry to plan its production and sale and take pro-active
steps to significantly decrease the production of BS-ill compliant vehicles
and correspondingly significantly increase the production of BS-IV
c compliant vehicles. Unfortunately, SIAM did not heed the caution but
expressed the view that it would be difficult to ensure compliance. We
were also told that EPCA had no jurisdiction or authority to give such a
direction. However, that is not an issue of concern at the present moment.
59. EPCA also pointed out in the meeting that BS-IV compliant
D vehicles reduce pollution by 80% of particulate matter as compar~d to
BS-III compliant vehicles, but even this had no.effect.
60. The meeting convened bY. EPCA was followed up by the
CPCB when it wrote to SIAM on 1oth December, 2016 reiterating that
BS-IV fuel would be available all over the country from 1st April, 2017
E and that the automobile industry should ensure that the stock of BS-III
compliant vehicles are exhausted before that date for reasons mentioned
in the minutes of the meeting held on 19th October, 2016. Even this had
no effect on SIAM. Therefore, to blame EPCA for their problems is
rather unfair of the interveners.
F 61. However one may look at the issue ofair pollution, it is tim.e to
realize that a collective effort is needed to clear up the air. In this process,
the interveners have a huge role and they should now wake up to their
responsibility for the benefit ofall ofus.
Conclusion
G
62. For the reasons given above, we allow I.A. No. 494 of2017
filed by the learned Amicus and I.A. No. 487 of 2017 by Bajaj Auto
Limited. The intervention applications and submissions made therein by
the automobile industry and the dealers association are rejected.
Divya Pandey I.A.s dismissed.