Supreme Court may hear Delhi Govt's plea against blanket ban on overage vehicles today
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai is likely to hear the plea today. The plea seeks to recall the top court's October 29, 2018, order upholding the National Green Tribunal's initial directive.
The plea submitted that a comprehensive policy is required to tackle pollution in Delhi-NCR, which gives vehicle fitness based on actual emission levels of individual vehicles as per scientific methods rather than implementing a blanket ban based solely on age.
The plea seeks a comprehensive study by the Centre and CAQM to assess the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria.
Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said last week that pollution levels of vehicles should be determined based on their usage rather than their age, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the End-of-Life (EoL) vehicle policy.
"There are many vehicles that have aged, but because they haven't been used much, their pollution levels are lower. There are so many new vehicles whose age is less but have been used a lot; so we believe that the parameter to determine pollution levels must be the use of the vehicle instead of its age," Sirsa told news agency ANI.
On July 24, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to examine whether BS-VI compliant vehicles should have an end-of-life limit of 15 years for petrol vehicles and 10 years for diesel vehicles in the Delhi-NCR region.
The apex court had earlier directed the transport departments of states in the National Capital Region (NCR) that all diesel vehicles more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years old shall not ply in terms of order of the NGT order.
"All vehicles, diesel or petrol, which are more than 15 years old shall not be permitted to ply on the roads and wherever such vehicles of this age are noticed, the concerned authorities shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including seizure of the vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.
"The vehicles which are more than 15 years old, will not be permitted to be parked in any public area, and they shall be towed away and challenged by the police in accordance with the law. This direction would be applicable to all vehicles without exception i.e. two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers, light vehicles and heavy vehicles irrespective of whether commercial or otherwise," the NGT said in its November 26, 2014, order.
Recently, the Delhi government implemented 'No fuel for 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles' from July 1, 2025, in compliance with the mandate from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM).
However, within two days of its implementation, the city government, facing public ire, put it on hold, citing 'operational and infrastructural challenges' as the reasons.
Key Takeaways The Delhi government's vehicle age ban has been put on hold due to public backlash.
The government argues for a more scientific approach to vehicle emissions based on usage, not age.
The Supreme Court will review the implications of the ban and consider a comprehensive study.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
16 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order pausing new OBC list in Bengal
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order that had paused the publication of the new Other Backward Class (OBC) list in West Bengal. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai termed the impugned Calcutta High Court order both "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous'. The Bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, disagreed with the Calcutta HC's view that the West Bengal government ought to have taken the state Assembly's approval before introducing the new OBC list. 'How can the Calcutta High Court pass a stay like this? Reservation is part of the Executive functions. This is the settled law right from the Indira Sawhney (judgment) that the Executive can do it. Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary,' remarked the apex court. After parties urged the top court to decide the matter itself, the CJI Gavai-led Bench issued a notice on the West Bengal government's Special Leave Petition and listed the case for hearing after two weeks. 'Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be a stay to the impugned order (of the Calcutta HC),' the Supreme Court said. In an interim order passed on June 17, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had asked the West Bengal government not to publish the final notification for the new OBC list till July 31 this year. A Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha prima facie opined that the previous four to five notifications issued by the West Bengal government on the fresh survey to prepare the fresh OBC list were in violation of the apex court orders. The fresh OBC list was supposed to include 140 communities, and the interim stay was perceived as a major blow to the Mamata Banerjee-led state government. In its plea filed before the apex court, the state government has argued that if the interim stay imposed by the Calcutta High Court on issuing the final notification for the fresh OBC list prevails till July 31, the process for recruitments under this category, as directed by the apex court earlier, would be stalled. Earlier in May 2024, the Calcutta High Court had cancelled all the OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, which ideally meant that all such certificates issued during the current Trinamool Congress regime in the state since 2011 stood cancelled. The West Bengal government had moved the Supreme Court against this, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state. Claiming that the fresh survey process was a blatant example of appeasement politics, a petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the survey. The plea accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court last year. In an interim order passed on June 17, the Justice Chakraborty-headed Bench issued a stay on the issuance of the final notification for a revised OBC list in West Bengal till July 31.
Scroll.in
16 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.
NDTV
16 minutes ago
- NDTV
Include Aadhaar, Voter ID: Supreme Court To Poll Body On Bihar Rolls Revision
New Delhi: Bihar voters should be allowed to submit Adhaar and voter Identity card as documents for the Special Intensive Revision, the Supreme Court told the Election Commission today during a hearing on the issue. The court pointed out that the risk of forgery - which was what the Commission had cited to rule out the three crucial documents including ration card - could happen for any of the 11 it had allowed. "There's presumption of correctness with official documents, you proceed with these 2 documents. You will include these two documents (Aadhaar and EPIC)...Wherever you find forgery, that's on case-to-case basis. Any document on the earth can be forged," Justice Surya Kant remarked. instead of "en masse exclusion", there should be, "en masse inclusion", Justice Kant told the Commission. The court, though, refused to stop the publication of the draft rolls on August 1, making it clear that the final outcome would be subject to the decision on the appeals pending in the court. The two-judge bench of Justice Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not hold a detailed hearing today as Justice Kant had to attend an administrative meeting with the Chief Justice of India in the afternoon. Assuring the petitioners that the matters will be heard at the earliest, Justice Kant asked the lawyers to submit the tentative times required for argument by tomorrow. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms - one of the petitioners in the case - pressed for a stay, contending that it would inconvenience nearly 4.5 crore people as those excluded will have to wade through massive paperwork to seek inclusion. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, requested the court not to interfere as it was only a draft list. Justice Surya Kant said the court can ultimately strike down the entire process if any illegality was found. The petitioners had told the top court that the Commission was violating a previous order of the Supreme Court which had suggested that it consider Aadhaar cards, Electoral Photo Identity Cards and Ration Cards. The Commission, however, said that it has already flagged its reservations about these documents, citing several fake ration cards. The bench, however, verbally told the Commission again to consider at least the statutory documents of Aadhaar and EPIC.
