&w=3840&q=100)
80% of vehicle owners in Delhi against fuel ban on old vehicles: Survey
The survey highlights a stark difference in opinion between two-wheeler and four-wheeler owners. While 87 per cent of two-wheeler owners oppose the fuel ban, only 44 per cent of four-wheeler owners share this view. Given that two-wheelers constitute about 70 per cent of the affected vehicles, this opposition represents a significant portion of daily commuters who rely on older bikes for transportation. Many owners of older two-wheelers, especially from lower-income groups, feel unfairly targeted as they struggle to afford replacements and face vehicle impoundments.
Public criticism of the policy
Many Delhi residents have criticised the policy as "arbitrary and unfair", particularly for those with well-maintained vehicles that still meet pollution standards. Social media reactions describe the ban as elitist and disconnected from the financial realities of middle-class families.
Critics also argue that forcing owners to scrap functioning vehicles contradicts sustainability goals and imposes financial burdens through recurring loans for new vehicles. There is also frustration over the policy's focus on vehicle age rather than actual emissions performance.
The survey also found that 65 per cent of respondents believe the Delhi government should have prioritised other pollution reduction initiatives before implementing the fuel ban. Suggested alternatives include tackling stubble burning, improving street cleaning with mechanised equipment, enforcing bans on garbage burning, and stricter controls on construction dust. Many feel these measures would have a greater impact on air quality than the current vehicle fuel restrictions.
Enforcement and public response
The Delhi government has enforced the ban using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at over 500 fuel stations to identify and prevent refuelling of old vehicles. On the first day of the ban, 24 vehicles, mostly two-wheelers, were impounded, with fines imposed on owners. The transport department, municipal corporation, and Delhi Police are jointly overseeing enforcement. However, fuel pump operators have expressed concerns about confrontations with angry vehicle owners and have requested police presence for safety.
Meanwhile, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta has defended the policy, saying it aligns with Supreme Court and Commission for Air Quality Management orders aimed at phasing out polluting vehicles. The government insists the move is regulatory, not political, and blames previous administrations for delays in addressing vehicular pollution. Besides, Transport Minister Pankaj Kumar Singh has said that court directives since 2014 have compelled the government to act.
Survey details and demographics
The survey gathered over 33,000 responses from residents across Delhi's 11 districts, with 67 per cent male and 33 per cent female participants. The survey aimed to gauge public opinion on the fuel ban and explore whether citizens support alternative pollution control strategies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi end-of-life vehicles policy gets big local backing, residents say decision good for pollution control
Delhi vehicle owners have supported the policy restricting fuel supply to end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), calling it a positive step towards pollution control. The development comes as the Delhi government has written to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), seeking a hold on the directive banning fuel sale to ELVs in the national capital. Speaking to ANI, a vehicle owner said, "I bought a Scotty in 2017. The decision (not to give fuel to end-of-life vehicles) was wrong for those who cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. When I see a vehicle emitting pollution, I tell them to get their pollution certificate made, because we have to suffer because of them. So this decision of the government is good." Another vehicle owner told ANI, "The steps the government is taking for Delhi are good. Pollution caused by vehicles is high, so the steps being taken are good. If the vehicle is old, then it is the responsibility of the citizens to come forward. Similar steps should be taken in all metro cities..." Following the reactions, the Delhi NCT government formally approached the Commission, urging it to pause the enforcement. In a letter to the Commission, Delhi Minister for Environment, Forests, and Wildlife, Manjinder Singh Sirsa, wrote that soon after the implementation of the direction, which came into effect on July 1, 2025, it was revealed that "certain issues" needed to be addressed before they could be fully implemented. Live Events Under the Delhi government's policy, petrol vehicles older than 15 years and diesel vehicles older than 10 years are now denied refuelling at fuel stations in the city. "The Government of Delhi is fully aligned with the Commission's objective to phase out older, polluting vehicles and has implemented a comprehensive Air Pollution Mitigation Plan 2025 to this end," the Minister wrote in his letter. "The GNCTD has been complying with the directions of Hon'ble NGT and Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding implementing a ban on EOL vehicles, deregistering them and ensuring that they do not ply on Delhi roads," the letter read. Many end-of-life vehicles have been denied fuel at fuel stations after being identified by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The Minister said because of "several critical operational and infrastructural challenges", it will not be feasible to implement it at this juncture. He argued that immediate implementation may be "premature and potentially counterproductive." "A stage-wise implementation that begins only in Delhi will not serve its intended purpose. It is highly likely to lead to vehicle owners procuring fuel from adjacent districts like Gurugram, Faridabad, and Ghaziabad, thereby circumventing the ban and potentially fostering an illegal cross-border market for fuel, which would further exacerbate the problem," the Minister's letter read. "ANPR system is not implemented in the neighbouring states, which will again be an issue in the effective integration of the system with the system of neighbouring states, as and when the same is implemented. So far as our knowledge is concerned, neighbouring districts have not yet started installation of ANPR cameras in the fuel stations," the letter added. Meanwhile, the opposition lashed out at the BJP-led administration over the decision. Delhi Assembly Leader of Opposition and AAP leader Atishi criticised the inconsistency in the policy rollout. "Is the BJP running a government in Delhi or Phulera's panchayat? One day they make a decision, the next day they say the decision is not right. On the third day, they write letters," she said. She added, "If the decision is not right, why did you take it? And why aren't you taking it back? Why are you playing this letter game? The BJP has a four-engine government in Delhi; if they had wanted to, they could have immediately withdrawn the decision, but they haven't done so yet because the BJP is reportedly in cahoots with car manufacturers, car scrappers, and car dealers. We asked the BJP a question that remains unanswered: How much did the BJP receive in donations from car manufacturers and sellers over the last five years? Removing vehicles after 10 years is a completely absurd, illogical, and baseless decision." Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court halt an Act passed by a State?
The story so far: Disposing of a writ and contempt petition, the Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court. What did SC order of July 2011 state? The Supreme Court, on July 5, 2011 issued an order stating that the State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities. The Court ordered the State to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs. The order said that the State shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos. The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists. The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Why was a contempt case filed? Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted 'to aid and assist the security forces' in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc. Section 5(2) of the Act further states that the members of the auxiliary force 'shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces…'. The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act. Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee). The legislature thus had addressed all the concerns observed by the Supreme Court. However, it was argued by the petitioners that the said enactment was not in consonance with the Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Why was contempt prayer rejected? There were reasons for rejecting the relief sought by petitioners. One, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the fact that all the directions issued by the Court had been complied to by the State of Chhattisgarh and necessary reports were submitted. Second, the Court said that every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt. The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed only on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. The Court therefore held that unless and until it is first established that the statute so enacted is in opposition to constitutional law or otherwise, it cannot be struck down. R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer and views are personal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
US SC clears way for deportation of several immigrants to South Sudan
The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger AP Washington The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding a lawless act of defiance. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face imprisonment, torture and even death if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
