Delhi Moves Supreme Court To Review Ban On Older Diesel, Petrol Vehicles, Calls for Scientific Study
The move marks a significant pushback against an existing directive that has drawn criticism for its perceived lack of nuance and disproportionate impact on middle-class vehicle owners.
In its application, the Delhi government has requested the apex court to direct the Central government or the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to undertake a comprehensive scientific study.
The study argues that it should assess the actual environmental impact of the age-based vehicle ban and evaluate whether such a measure makes a meaningful contribution to air quality improvements in the National Capital Region (NCR).
The plea emphasises the need to re-examine the effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness of a blanket age-based restriction. Instead, the government advocates for a more refined, emission-based regulatory framework that takes into account individual vehicle emissions and roadworthiness rather than relying solely on age as a disqualifying factor.
"The current approach mandates collective compliance, without distinguishing between heavily polluting and well-maintained, low-use vehicles," the application states. "This does not align with the broader objective of effectively reducing pollution levels in the region."
The Delhi government further highlighted that BS-6 (Bharat Stage 6) vehicles, introduced as a cleaner emission standard, emit significantly fewer pollutants than their BS-4 counterparts. It argued that many vehicles currently impacted by the ban are well-maintained, compliant with emission norms, and used infrequently, factors that result in minimal actual emissions.
According to the application, studies suggest that such low-usage, older vehicles contribute negligibly to overall pollution, raising concerns about the proportionality of the ban. The government warned that the directive has placed undue hardship on middle-class citizens who may rely on these vehicles for limited but essential transport needs.
The Delhi government is urging the court to revisit the 2018 order that enforces the vehicle age cap and instead focus on more targeted, scientific, and equitable measures to combat pollution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
23 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC declines to stay draft electoral roll publication in Bihar, emphasises ‘En Masse Inclusion' over Exclusion
New Delhi, July 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court today declined to stay the publication of the draft electoral rolls for Bihar scheduled for August 1 under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise initiated by the Election Commission of India (ECI), despite concerns raised by opposition leaders and civil society groups over mass disenfranchisement. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refrained from granting interim relief, noting the time constraints as Justice Kant had to attend an administrative meeting later in the day. However, the Bench assured the petitioners that the matter would be heard expeditiously and asked counsels to indicate the time required for detailed arguments on Tuesday. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), pleaded with the court to restrain the ECI from issuing the draft list, arguing that the ongoing process could inconvenience nearly 4.5 crore voters. He said those excluded from the draft would be forced to undertake the cumbersome process of filing objections and proving their eligibility anew. Justice Surya Kant, however, remarked that since the list was only a draft, the Court retains the power to review and nullify the process later if legal infirmities are found. 'We can always strike down the process if we find any illegality,' he observed, declining to pass an order making the process subject to the outcome of the case, stating that such a presumption was already implicit. The petitioners also flagged the alleged non-compliance by ECI officials with the Supreme Court's earlier direction (July 10 order) to accept Aadhaar cards, Voter ID (EPIC), and Ration cards as proof of eligibility. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the ECI, responded that Aadhaar and EPIC were being reviewed, but raised concerns over the authenticity of ration cards, citing widespread instances of forged documents. Justice Kant, however, reiterated the presumption of validity attached to official documents and directed the ECI to ensure that Aadhaar and EPIC are accepted. 'You will proceed with Aadhaar and Voter ID... Forgery can happen with any document; that cannot be the basis to reject an entire category,' the Court observed, adding that the ECI should work towards 'en masse inclusion' rather than en masse exclusion. The controversy stems from a June 24, 2025, directive by the ECI launching a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitions, filed by a broad coalition of political leaders, activists, and civil rights groups, claim that the process is opaque, hasty, and disproportionately affects Muslims, Dalits, poor migrants, and illiterate citizens. The petitioners—including leaders from the INC, CPI, CPI-M, DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), RJD, AIMIM, JMM, and others argue that this is the first time voters who have cast their ballots in multiple elections are being asked to reconfirm their citizenship, failing which their names may be deleted from the electoral roll. They further contend that the documents demanded by the ECI such as passports, birth certificates, and school certificates are not easily available to large sections of Bihar's population. By excluding widely used documents like Aadhaar and Ration cards, the petitioners claim the ECI is violating Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act and Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, both of which mandate adequate safeguards against arbitrary exclusion. In its counter-affidavit, the ECI has defended the exercise as necessary to ensure that only Indian citizens are included in the electoral rolls. It has maintained that Aadhaar and Ration cards are not reliable proof of citizenship and insisted that its eleven-document list was merely illustrative. The ADR, in its rejoinder, alleged large-scale procedural violations, including unauthorized mass-uploading of enumeration forms without voter consent, submission of forms for deceased individuals, and attempts to meet 'unrealistic' deadlines set by the Commission. These claims were supported by field reports from journalists and election observers. Previously, a vacation Bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had also cautioned that determination of citizenship is not within the ECI's mandate, urging it to consider Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration cards as part of the process. Although the Supreme Court has not yet passed any definitive orders, the matter is now scheduled for detailed hearing, where the legality and fairness of the ongoing SIR exercise will be rigorously scrutinized. For now, the Court has allowed the ECI to proceed with the publication of the draft electoral rolls, leaving the door open for judicial intervention if procedural violations are established. UNI SNG RN
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Supreme Court quashes FIR against Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case
The Supreme Court on Monday quashed an FIR against badminton player Lakshya Sen, his family members and coach in the birth certificate forgery case. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar said the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen was an abuse of the process of court. The top court observed the very allegations that were examined and debunked by competent authorities were now being sought to be revived as it ruled out any fresh evidence meriting reopening of the appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. The top court went on, "To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice."The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances, the bench held, would amount to an abuse of process, which this court cannot countenance. The top court observed the Sports Authority of India (SAI), upon receiving complaints, initiated a verification process in 2016, which included medical testing and factual players were stated to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi."The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench M G Nagaraj alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were top court was hearing a plea against a February 19 Karnataka High Court order rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach U Vimal high court found prima facie evidence, warranting an investigation into the alleged Sen's parents Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, along with his brother, coach, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association were involved in falsifying the birth to the complaint, the accused allegedly manipulated the birth certificates of the Sen brothers, reducing their age by approximately two-and-a-half alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government supported his claims with documents obtained under RTI Act and requested the court to summon original records from SAI and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in New on the evidence, the court directed the High Grounds police station to conduct an police subsequently lodged an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of petitioners moved the Karnataka High Court in 2022, securing an interim order, which stalled the argued the complaint and subsequent FIR were baseless, motivated, and intended to harass was alleged to have acted out of personal vendetta, after his daughter applied to join the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy in 2020 but was not selected after the evaluation a coach at the academy, was named in the high court, while dismissing the petitions, observed the petitioners' counsel did not present arguments despite being given sufficient opportunities.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
