Holding

Sub‑rule 21 of Rule 115 is ultra‑vague and violative of Article 21 and must be read down to prohibit the sale or registration of any BS‑IV vehicle throughout India from 1 April 2020.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a petition by environmental activist M.C. Mehta seeking to prohibit the sale of Bharat Stage‑IV (BS‑IV) compliant vehicles after 31 March 2020, arguing that the government’s sub‑rule 21 of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which allowed registration of such vehicles until June/September 2020, was vague and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that BS‑VI fuel would be available nationwide by 1 April 2020 and that manufacturers already possessed the technology to produce BS‑VI vehicles, but were seeking a grace period to sell existing BS‑IV stock. Relying on the constitutional right to a clean environment and prior judgments on vehicular pollution, the Court held that any extension would jeopardise public health. Using its powers under Article 142, the Court read down sub‑rule 21, directing that no BS‑IV vehicle may be sold or registered anywhere in India from 1 April 2020. The petition was disposed with directions to enforce the BS‑VI norm.

Issues considered

The validity and interpretation of sub‑rule 21 of Rule 115, Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, with respect to sale and registration of BS‑IV vehicles after 31 March 2020.
Whether allowing a grace period for BS‑IV vehicle sales violates Article 21 (right to life and a healthy environment).
Whether the Court can, under Article 142, read down the sub‑rule to prohibit such sales.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989s. Rule 115, sub‑rule 21

Subjects

vehicular pollutionemission standardsBS‑IVBS‑VIArticle 21right to environmentCentral Motor Vehicle Rulespublic healthenvironmental lawArticle 142

Judgment

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 565 565

M. C. MEHTA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(In Re : Recommendation Nos. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of report Nos. 71 and
78 submitted by EPCA) B
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985)
OCTOBER 24, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
C
Environment – Vehicular pollution – Shift from Bharat Stage
IV (BS-IV) compliant vehicles to BS-VI compliant vehicles – Society
of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) and other Automobile
manufacturers sought permission to sell BS-IV compliant vehicles
in India after 31.03.2020 and made reference to the notification
D
dated 20.02.2018 whereby sub-rule 21 has been inserted in Rule
115 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 – According to SIAM,
BS-VI fuel will be available in the entire country only with effect
from 01.04.2020 and manufacturers were, therefore, forced to stop
production after 31.03.2020 and switch over to BS-VI compliant
vehicles overnight – Held: Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague as E
it does not talk of sale of vehicles – It only mentions registration of
vehicles and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV
norms up to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to
30.09.2020 – This rule is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution in
as much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond
F
31.03.2020 – When BS-VI fuel is compared with BS-IV, there is
massive improvement in environmental terms – Once BS-VI emission
norms are enforced, there will be 68% improvement in PM 2.5 –
Some manufacturers are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020
deadline because new use of technology will lead to increase in the
cost of the vehicles which may lead to reduction in sales of the G
vehicles and their profit – However, there can be no compromise
with the health of the citizens and in case of conflict between the
health and wealth, health will be given precedence – Thus, in exercise
of power vested u/Art.142, sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 to be interpreted
and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the
H
565
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A emission standard BS-IV shall be sold or registered in entire country
with effect from 01.04.2020 – Constitution of India – Arts. 142 and
21 – 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-IV
B and now BS-VI norms have been introduced, now this Court is
taking suo moto notice of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
At the outset, sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague. It does not
talk of sale of vehicles. It only mentions registration of vehicles
and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV norms
C up to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to
30.09.2020. This rule, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
in as much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond
31.03.2020 and must be accordingly read down. Any extension
of time in introducing the new norms which is not absolutely
necessary adversely impacts the health of the citizens and is,
D therefore, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
Rule goes against the spirit of all the orders passed earlier by
this Court. From today, 31.03.2020 is almost 1 ½ years away.
There is sufficient time for the manufacturers to change over to
the new system and, therefore, there is no reason why they should
E be given a window of three or six months for sale of accumulated
vehicles. Every vehicle sold after the cut-off date of 01.04.2020
is bound to cause more pollution and, therefore, the
manufacturers, cannot be permitted to sell any non-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
F money to move to the BS-VI technology, but on the other hand,
the automobile industry is coming up with a variety of untenable
excuses just to delay the introduction of BS-VI compliant vehicles
by a few months. [Para 19] [575-H; 576-A-F]
2. The facts only highlight that some of the manufacturers
G are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020 deadline not because
they do not have the technology but because the use of technology
will lead to increase in the cost of the vehicles which may lead to
reduction in sales of the vehicles and ultimately their profit. There
can be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if one
H has to choose between health and wealth, keeping in view the
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 567

expanded scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, health of the A
teeming millions of this country will have to take precedence
over the greed of a few automobile manufacturers. The automobile
manufacturers must behave responsibly. [Para 14] [573-E-F]
3. The Government has developed a policy of phasing out
polluting vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting B
vehicles. This has been done in a gradual manner. Europe
introduced Euro-IV fuel in the year 2009 and Euro-VI standards
in 2015. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as
early as possible. [Para 20] [577-A-B]
4. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court C
under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is directed that sub-rule
21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read that
no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat
Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with
effect from 01.04.2020. [Para 21] [577-B-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. Union
of India (1998) 6 SCC 63 : [1998] 3 SCR 918 ; M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (Matter regarding emission E
standard for vehicles) (1999) 6 SCC 12; M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 191; M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India 2017 SCC Online SC 394; N.D. Jayal
v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 362 : [2003] 3 Suppl.
SCR 152 – referred to. F
Case Law Reference
(1990) 1 SCC 520 referred to Para 16
[1998] 1 SCR 431 referred to Para 16
(1998) 6 SCC 60 referred to Para 16 G
[1998] 3 SCR 918 referred to Para 16
(1999) 6 SCC 12 referred to Para 16
(2002) 10 SCC 191 referred to Para 16
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 referred to Para 16 H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A CIVIL 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,
B Ashwini Mata, Sr. Advs., Ms. Aparajita Singh, A.D.N. Rao, Siddhartha
Chowdhury, Advs. (A.Cs.), S. W. A. Qadri, D. L. Chidanand, Devasis
Bharuka, 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,
C Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Rachana Gupta, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Amit
Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ankit Raj, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Indira Bhakar,
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sandeep Narain, Avishkar Singhvi, Ms. Anjali Agarwal
for M/s S Narain And Co., Akshat Hansaria, Pavan Bhushan, Akash
Chatterjee, Vijay K. Sondhi, Nakul Sachdeva, Nayamat S., Aakarshan
Sahay, 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 is
whether Bharat Stage IV (for short BS-IV) compliant vehicles should
E be permitted to be sold in India after 31.03.2020.
2. In an earlier judgment dated 13.04.2017, we have given detailed
reasons for the order dated 29.03.2017 whereby this Court had directed
that 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 company
F whether such vehicle is a two wheeler, three wheeler, four wheeler or
commercial vehicle etc.. We had also by the said order prohibited
registration of non- BS-IV vehicles from 01.04.2017 except if such
vehicles were sold on or before 31.03.2017. Since in the judgment dated
13.04.2017, we have set out in detail the history leading to implementation
of the Bharat Stage compliant fuels, it is not necessary to repeat the
G
same here. However, a short recap of the same would be apposite to
understand the issues in hand.
3. In 2003, the Government of India announced the National Auto
Policy based on the recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 569
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

constituted in 2001. BS-IV compliant vehicles were made compulsory A
for four wheelers in different parts of the country on different dates
starting from 01.04.2005, from which date registration of only BS-IV
compliant vehicles were permitted in the metropolises of Delhi,
Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata. Thereafter, it was
made compulsory to have BS-IV compliant vehicles in some other cities
B
from 01.04.2010. More cities were added on 21.05.2010 and on
14.07.2015. Finally, by amendment dated 19.08.2015 it was mandated
that 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 were
made subject to BS-III norms on and with effect from 01.04.2010 by C
insertion 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 vehicles
will comply with BS-IV emission norms and all existing models will shift
to BS-IV emission norms from 01.04.2017. Similarly, Rule 17 was D
inserted in Rule 115 of the Rules on 12.06.2015 in respect of three
wheelers wherein BS-IV standard would be applicable to new models
on or after 01.04.2016. Resultantly, only those vehicles which were
BS-IV compliant would be sold after 01.04.2017.
5. An issue was raised by the manufacturers of motor vehicles E
that they should be given reasonable and sufficient time for sale of stocks
of those vehicles which are not BS-IV compliant vehicles but
manufactured up to 31.03.2017. This Court did not accept the submission
of the manufacturers and issued the direction referred to hereinabove.
It would be interesting to note that though some of the manufacturers of
two wheelers and three wheelers took a stand before this Court that F
great technological changes are required to make the vehicles BS-IV
compliant, one of the largest manufacturers of two wheelers and three
wheelers in India i.e. Bajaj Auto, filed an application in this Court praying
that it was already manufacturing BS-IV compliant vehicles and that
the vehicles not complying to BS-IV norms should not be registered G
after 2017.
6. The issue before us is somewhat similar. Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
learned senior counsel and Mr. Sandeep Narain, learned counsel
appearing for the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (for short
‘SIAM’), have submitted that though they are not averse to manufacturing H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A BS-VI compliant vehicles, they should be given some time to sell the
stocks of non-BS-VI compliant vehicles manufactured upto 31.03.2020.
In this regard, they have made reference to the notification dated
20.02.2018 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, after
sub-rule (20), the following sub-rule shall be inserted namely:-
“(21) New motor vehicles conforming to Emission Standard
Bharat Stage-IV, manufactured before the 1st April, 2020
shall not be registered after the 30th June, 2020:
C Provided that the new motor vehicles of categories M and
N conforming to Emission Standard Bharat Stage-IV,
manufactured before the 1st April, 2020 and sold in the form
of drive away chassis, shall not be registered after the 30th
September, 2020.”
7. It is submitted that the Government of India while balancing
D
the need for a cleaner environment with the practical difficulties faced
by the manufacturers has given a three months’ window to the automobile
manufacturers to dispose of the vehicles conforming to BS-IV norms.
In respect of certain categories of commercial vehicles in which only a
chassis is sold and a body has to be built thereupon, the period of
E registration has been extended up to 30.09.2020.
8. It has been contended on behalf of SIAM that in Europe the
normal practice is that about one year’s time is given to the manufacturers
of vehicles when a higher quality of fuel is introduced and the fuel is
introduced much earlier and thereafter an outer limit is fixed for sale of
F compliant vehicles. According to SIAM, BS-VI fuel will be available in
the entire country only with effect from 01.04.2020 and manufacturers
are, therefore, forced to stop production after 31.03.2020. Therefore, it
is not feasible for the manufacturers to switch over to BS-VI compliant
vehicles overnight. They have to be given some reasonable time for sale
of the accumulated stocks of non-BS-VI (i.e. BS-IV) compliant vehicles.
G
It is further submitted that six to nine months’ time is required to shift the
assembly line to make BS-VI compliant vehicles and if the request of
the manufacturers is not accepted, they will have to start manufacturing
BS-VI compliant vehicles well before 31.03.2020 and at least three to
six months’ prior to the said date. It has also been contended that earlier
H BS-VI fuel was to be introduced with effect from 01.04.2024, which
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 571
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

was pre-poned to 01.04.2023 and it was then pre-poned to 01.04.2021 A
and finally the date was advanced to 01.04.2020. It was decided to
leapfrog 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 the
manufacturers.
9. Mr. Gopal Subaramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing B
for one of the manufacturers, submits that his clients are already
manufacturing vehicles which are both BS-IV and BS-VI fuel compliant
and they are on the road already. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional
Solicitor General submits that keeping in view the difficulties faced by
the manufacturers and balancing the need to have a cleaner environment,
three months’ period given to the manufacturers is reasonable. He also C
urges that the Rules have not been challenged by any party and, therefore,
this Court should not go into the validity of the Rules.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Aparajita Singh, learned amicus curiae,
has made a passionate plea that no non-BS-VI compliant vehicle should
be permitted to be sold in the entire country after 01.04.2020. She has D
drawn our attention to the Report of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee (for short ‘the Committee’) dated 07.08.2018. This Report
mainly deals with National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi but there are
some references to the entire country. Some of the observations made
by the Committee need to be considered and taken note of. The E
Committee in Para 5.15 notes that the problem of air pollution is affecting
all human beings and any leniency on the part of the Government in
tackling it will have a cascading effect on the health of the citizens.
These observations have been made with specific reference to vehicular
pollution and the need to ensure compliance of BS-VI norms with effect
from 01.04.2020. There can be no two views that air pollution is F
hazardous to health. We may, also take note of certain observations of
the Report of the Committee which show that one out of three children
in Delhi suffers from respiratory problems. This is almost twice as high
as compared to the city of Kolkata or rural areas. We may note that the
World Health Organisation’s (WHO) database of more than 4,300 cities G
showed Indian cities of Gwalior, Allahabad, Raipur, Delhi, Ludhiana,
Khanna, Varanasi and Patna as being among the most polluted in the
world1. Our attention has been drawn to various other documents which
clearly show the deleterious effects of pollution on health. The hazards
1
“World’s Most Polluted Cities”, World Economic Forum, 03.05.2018 H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A of pollution and its ill effect on the health of the citizens especially children
are not limited to the city of Delhi or the NCR of Delhi but affect all the
citizens of the country.
11. The Union Government has spent about Rs.30,000 crores to
manufacture BS-IV compliant fuel. We have been informed that another
B Rs. 30,000/- crores of the taxpayers’ money have been expended by the
Union 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 health
of the citizens and also taking note of the urgent need for a clean
environment, has taken steps to manufacture cleaner fuel. This fuel has
already been made available in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of
C Delhi from 01.04.2018 and we have been informed that barring a few
places, it shall be available in the entire NCR from 01.04.2019. It will
probably be available in many parts of the country prior to 01.04.2020
and the entire country will shift to BS-VI fuel from 01.04.2020.
Obviously, the manufacture of clean fuel is being done in a phased manner
D because all the refineries cannot simultaneously start manufacturing clean
fuel. It is not as if on 01.04.2020 just by waving a magic wand the entire
country will change to BS-VI compliant norms. If all the refineries and
manufacturers by taking note of the requirement to bring in BS-VI fuel,
have introduced such fuel from 2018 and are introducing it in a phased
manner in the entire country by 31.03.2020, we see no reason why
E manufacturers of automobiles, two wheelers, three wheelers etc. cannot
also do so.
12. We may note that whereas in this Court SIAM has been
canvassing that the shift to BS-VI compliant vehicles is a long drawn
out process requiring huge changes in technology, the very same
F manufacturers are selling and exporting BS-VI compliant vehicles to
Europe and other countries. With regard to two wheelers it has been
specifically urged that the technological changes are immense. To counter
this argument the learned amicus curiae has drawn our attention to a
Press Release issued by M/s. Hero MotoCorp., which is one of the
G largest motor manufacturers of two wheelers in the country. In this
Press Release issued in July 2017 it has been stated that M/s. Hero
MotoCorp. has begun developing BS-VI compliant models and it aims
to introduce such products much before the timeline of 2020. The
company has also stated that it will manufacture only BS-VI fuel compliant
vehicles well before the date stipulated by the authorities. If one
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 573
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

manufacturer can do this, we see no reason why other manufacturers A
of two wheelers cannot do so.
13. With regard to trucks and buses, from a news item published
in the Financial Express dated 06.07.2018, it is apparent that Eicher is
already manufacturing trucks and buses which are not only BS-VI
compliant but BS-VI CNG compliant. Another manufacturer of heavy B
vehicles i.e. Ashok Leyland had, in August, 2018 through its subsidiary
Optare obtained an order to manufacture the world’s first electric double
decker buses. The technology needed to manufacture such electric buses
is much more advanced and difficult as compared to the technological
changes required to manufacture petrol and diesel vehicles which are
BS-VI compliant. Similarly, TVS Motors on 07.08.2018 has issued a C
press note that it will be manufacturing BS-VI compliant vehicles much
ahead of the deadline of 2020. Many members of SIAM in the Auto
Expo held in February, 2018 have exhibited vehicles which are
technologically much more advanced than BS-VI compliant vehicles.
These manufacturers have not only asserted that they can manufacture D
electric vehicles but also asserted that they are developing hydrogen cell
fuel vehicles along with hybrid, electric and CNG vehicles.
14. We have mentioned these facts only to highlight that some of
the manufacturers are not willing to comply with the 31.03.2020 deadline
not because they do not have the technology but because the use of E
technology will lead to increase in the cost of the vehicles which may
lead to reduction in sales of the vehicles and ultimately their profit. There
can be no compromise with the health of the citizens and if one has to
choose between health and wealth, keeping in view the expanded scope
of Article 21 of the Constitution, health of the teeming millions of this
country will have to take precedence over the greed of a few automobile F
manufacturers. The automobile manufacturers must behave responsibly.
We expected that keeping in view our earlier order, they would have
themselves volunteered to be BS-VI compliant by 31.03.2020.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case with some of the manufacturers
and they want to stretch on the timeline by a few days or months for no G
other reason but to make a little more money.
15. When we compare BS-VI fuel with BS-IV fuel, there is a
massive improvement in environmental terms. Once BS-VI emission
norms are enforced, there will be a 68% improvement in PM2.5 This is
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A not a small change. It is a vast improvement and the faster it is brought,
the better it is. The amicus curiae has strenuously urged that, at least, in
the NCR of Delhi, the BS-VI norms be applied for sale of vehicles from
01.04.2020. We feel that it may not be practical to introduce BS-VI
compliant vehicles region-wise or city-wise. In our view, the BS-IV
experiment in this regard was not very successful. BS-VI compliant
B
vehicles are going to be more expensive than BS-IV compliant vehicles.
People have a tendency to buy cheaper vehicle(s) even from a
neighbouring city. We also strongly feel that the problem of pollution is
not limited to the NCR of Delhi but it is a problem which has engulfed
the entire country especially the major cities. India has the dubious
C distinction of having 15 out of the 20 most polluted cities in the world.
The pollution in Gwalior, Raipur & Allahabad is worse than Delhi. The
situation is alarming and critical. It brooks no delay.
16. It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right
D to a decent environment2. It includes within its ambit the right of a citizen
to live in a clean environment3. With regard to vehicular traffic, this
Court has issued a number of directions to ensure a clean environment
and reduce pollution4. It has been held that the right to clean environment
is a fundamental right5. The right to live in an environment free from
smoke and pollution follows from the “quality” of life which is an inherent
E part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human
dignity becomes illusory in the absence of a healthy environment6. The
right to life not only means leading a life with dignity but includes within
its ambit the right to lead a healthy, robust life in a clean atmosphere free
from pollution. Obviously, such rights are not absolute and have to co-
F exist with sustainable development. Therefore, if there is a conflict
between 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 standard
for vehicles), (1999) 6 SCC 12, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 191,
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 394
5
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.
6
Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc, AIR 1990 SC 630,
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,(2004) 12 SCC 118, State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather &
Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389.
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 575
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

precedence. When we are concerned with the health of not one citizen A
but the entire citizenry including the future citizens of the country, the
larger public interest has to outweigh the much smaller pecuniary interest
of the industry, in this case the automobile industry, especially when the
entire wherewithal to introduce the cleaner technology exists.
17. It is therefore necessary to ensure that BS-VI compliance is B
uniform throughout the country so that even those areas of the country
which fortunately have not suffered the ills of extreme pollution are safe
in the future. The sale of automobiles and other vehicles is rising
exponentially and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing day
by day. Therefore, even a day’s delay in enforcing BS-VI norms is
going to harm the health of the people. We are dealing here with a C
situation where children and unborn children suffer from pollution and
issues of inter-generational equity are involved. Do we as a society or
as manufacturers of automobiles have a right to manufacture more
polluting vehicles when we have the technology to manufacture less
polluting vehicles? The answer is obviously a big NO. If we were to D
factor only economics even then it makes no economic sense to have
more polluting vehicles on the roads. The effect of pollution on the
environment and health is so huge that it cannot be compensated in the
marginal extra profits that the manufacturers might make. The amount
spent on countering the ills of pollution such as polluted air, damaged
lungs and the cost of healthcare far outweigh the profits earned. E

18. It was urged on behalf of the manufacturers that there are
multiple sources of pollution and vehicles only contribute to 2% of the
pollution. We are not in agreement with this submission because the
Report of the Committee to which we have adverted hereinabove states
that contribution of vehicles to ambient PM2.5 concentration during winter F
season is 25% and in the summer season it contributes 9%. Even if we
were to accept the figures submitted by SIAM, we are of the view that
no step is too small when it comes to fighting pollution. Small steps to
reduce pollution when taken together will lead to large scale reduction in
pollution which will result in much cleaner air, which eventually will result G
in a cleaner and better environment, healthier citizens and most
importantly a healthier generation to come.
19. In view of the fact that these proceedings have been pending
in court for a long time and also in view of the fact that it is because of
orders of this Court that BS-IV and now BS-VI norms have been H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A introduced from the dates which were not even thought of by the
Government, we feel that we have to take suo moto notice of the Rules.
At the outset, we may notice that sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague.
It does not talk of sale of vehicles. It only mentions registration of
vehicles and permits registration of vehicles conforming to BS-IV norms
up to 30.06.2020 and in case of categories M & N, up to 30.09.2020.
B
This rule, in our view, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution in as
much as it extends time for registration of vehicles beyond 31.03.2020
and must be accordingly read down. Any extension of time in introducing
the new norms which is not absolutely necessary adversely impacts the
health of the citizens and is, therefore, violative of Article 21 of the
C Constitution of India. This Rule goes against the spirit of all the orders
passed earlier by this Court. In the month of March, 2017 we were
dealing with a situation when BS-VI norms were to be made effective
throughout the country with effect from 01.04.2020 and this Court had
directed that non- BS-IV compliant vehicles shall not be registered on or
after 01.04.2017. The situation in the present case is totally different.
D
31.03.2020 is almost 1 ½ years away. There is sufficient time for the
manufacturers to change over to the new system and, therefore, we see
no reason why they should be given a window of three or six months for
sale of accumulated vehicles. Every vehicle sold after the cut-off date
of 01.04.2020 is bound to cause more pollution and, therefore, the
E manufacturers, in our considered view, cannot be permitted to sell any
non-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 money
to move to the BS-VI technology, but on the other hand, the automobile
industry is coming up with a variety of untenable excuses just to delay
the introduction of BS-VI compliant vehicles by a few months. We, in
F
our judgment dated 13.04.2017, had clearly held “when the health of
millions of our countrymen is involved, notification relating to commercial
activities ought not to be interpreted in a literal manner.” We have to
give a purposive interpretation to notifications specially those dealing
with public health issues and even more so, when health not only of the
G citizens at present but also the citizens in the future is involved. There is
more than sufficient time for the manufacturers to manufacture BS-VI
compliant vehicles. They already have the technology to do so. The
automobile industry must show the will, responsibility and urgency in this
regard.
H
M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 577
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

20. The Government has developed a policy of phasing out polluting A
vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting vehicles. This
has been done in a gradual manner. Europe introduced Euro-IV fuel in
the year 2009 and Euro-VI standards in 2015. We are already many
years behind them. We cannot afford to fall back further even by a
single day. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as
B
possible.
21. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub-rule 21 of Rule 115
and direct that sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood
to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat
Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect C
from 01.04.2020.
Ankit Gyan Directions issued.

D

E

F

G

H