M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) — CNG buses in Delhi

In the long running Delhi air pollution case, the Union of India asked to keep running diesel buses and to stop the full switch of buses to CNG. The Supreme Court refused. It held that the Union was trying to frustrate its orders, and it fixed a time table for phasing out 800 diesel buses a month.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

M.C. Mehta — petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985.

Union of India and others — respondents; the Union sought extension of time and modification of the CNG order (I.A. No. 116 and a later application of 5 February 2002).

NCT of Delhi (Delhi Government) — respondent; sought extensions to avoid disruption of bus services.

Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) — a government company that sells CNG in Delhi.

Bhure Lal Committee and the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority — bodies set up under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Authority is a statutory authority whose directions are final and binding.

Bus manufacturers (Ashok Leyland and TELCO) — applicants in an I.A. saying 1,500 chassis were ready for delivery.

Procedural History

1. On 23 September 1986 the Court first directed the Delhi Administration to file an affidavit on steps to control vehicle emissions (Order of the Court).
2. The Bhure Lal Committee was set up during the proceedings under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Order of the Court).
3. On 21 October 1994, 28 March 1995 and 9 February 1996 the Court referred to CNG for government vehicles and to CNG stations and kits (Order of the Court).
4. On 28 July 1998 the Court accepted the Bhure Lal Committee report and fixed the time limit for the switch to CNG (Order of the Court).
5. The Court extended time to 30 September 2001 and then to 31 January 2002 (Order of the Court).
6. On 31 January 2001 the Court noted the apathy of the Government and required compliance. On 26 March 2001 it passed an order that did not need modification (Order of the Court).
7. The Union filed an affidavit on 26 April 2001. Its I.A. No. 116 for variation was dismissed on 27 April 2001 (Order of the Court).
8. On 17 September 2001 the Court dealt with I.A. No. 142 and said the order of 28 July 1998 does not require modification. The Union filed a further application on 5 February 2002 (Order of the Court).
9. The Court decided the matters on 5 April 2002, and listed the case for 9 May 2002 (Order of the Court).

Facts

1. Lack of effort by enforcement agencies, despite adequate laws, led to spiralling air pollution in Delhi. The quality of air was steadily decreasing (Order of the Court).
2. Steps taken after the Court's interventions include lower sulphur in diesel to 0.50% and then 0.05%, lead free petrol, catalytic converters, pre-mix 2T oil, phasing out old vehicles, lower benzene in petrol and Euro-II standards for new vehicles by September 2000 (Order of the Court).
3. The Bhure Lal Committee recommended conversion to CNG and phasing out non-CNG buses. The Court's order of 28 July 1998 accepted this (Order of the Court).
4. For more than a year the NCT of Delhi and then the Union of India sought extensions for converting commercial vehicles. The Union's action from January 2001 to February 2002 discredited CNG, alleged CNG shortage and delayed dispensing stations (Order of the Court).
5. In 2001 the Union set up a Committee headed by Mr. R.A. Mashelkar. No member was a doctor or a public health expert. It recommended emission norms and leaving the choice of fuel to users (Order of the Court).
6. The Union of India did not challenge the Bhure Lal recommendations or the 1998 directions. It first opposed the change to CNG in its affidavit of 26 April 2001 (Order of the Court).
7. Particulars filed showed that no CNG was being imported and indigenous production far exceeded the supply to transport. An overwhelming quantity went to industries, including the power sector (Order of the Court).
8. Industry paid about Rs 3.55 per kg for natural gas, while a commercial vehicle owner in Delhi paid about Rs 13.11 per kg. The Union said gas is supplied to IGL at the same price as to industry (Order of the Court).
9. The allotment of CNG to Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL) was sought to be cancelled, while supply to at least two big business houses increased. The Managing Director of MUL was a member of the Bhure Lal Committee (Order of the Court).
10. Literature filed showed a link between air pollution and cardiovascular and respiratory disease. The JAMA study of over 500,000 people over 16 years found that each rise of 10 microgramme per cum of fine particles raised lung cancer risk by 8 per cent (Order of the Court).
11. The USEPA limit for PM 2.5 is 15 ug/cum. India's annual standard for PM 10 is 60 ug/cum, but most cities including Delhi record 150-200 ug/cum (Order of the Court).
12. In Bangalore, asthma among children rose from 9% in 1979 to 29.5% in 1999, as vehicles rose from 1.46 lacs to 12.23 lacs. In Kolkata, about 43% of children had respiratory disorders against 14% of rural children, and 94-96% produced sputum, though only 5.5% smoked, and that occasionally (Order of the Court).
13. A World Bank study using 1992 data put the annual health cost of ambient air pollution to India at up to Rs 5,550 crores, and in Delhi alone at about Rs 1,000 crores (Order of the Court).
14. Delhi's annual average RSPM levels fell from 222 to 186 in 2000, but remain about 3 times the national standard. Delhi adds over 2,00,000 vehicles a year, and its fleet is larger than those of Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai put together (Order of the Court).
15. The Bhure Lal Committee report confirmed adulteration of petroleum products in Delhi. The sample failure rate was 26 per cent (Order of the Court).
16. As of the latest figures, 3,727 CNG buses were on the road, and 6,338 more buses had to be phased out, giving 10,065 CNG buses in all (Order of the Court).
17. Bus manufacturers said 1,500 chassis were ready. Ashok Leyland and TELCO have installed capacity of 1,100 buses a month (Order of the Court).
18. The Union had roughly doubled the CNG allocation to Delhi vehicles in January 2002, by diverting gas from MUL (Order of the Court).

Issues Raised

1. Can the Union of India seek variation of the Court's CNG conversion order, on the plea that the order of 17 September 2001 said at this stage?
2. Is there a shortage of CNG, and can public health be subordinated to industry's needs?
3. Are diesel and CNG buses materially different in pollution, so that a mix of the two would be acceptable?
4. Is CNG technology too new to require at the scale directed?
5. What directions are needed for phasing out diesel buses and supplying CNG?

Arguments Contended

For the Union of India (Mr. Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General) and the NCT of Delhi:

• The use of the words at this stage in the order of 17 September 2001 meant that a request for an option between CNG and diesel could be made later.
• CNG is in short supply and the Union cannot supply adequate quantities.
• Natural gas is supplied to IGL at the same price as to industries.
• Diesel and CNG are not materially different for air pollution. A mix of CNG and diesel buses in equal proportion would make a difference of only 2% in pollution levels.
• CNG technology is still evolving and experimental, and no other city in the world has introduced CNG buses at this scale.
• A break in the pipeline would disrupt supply and could paralyse a transport system dependent solely on CNG.
• The Government sought phasing out of 200 buses a month.
• The Delhi Government sought extensions so that bus services would not be disrupted.

For the petitioner and the bus manufacturers: the judgment records the manufacturers' statements that 1,500 chassis are ready for delivery and their capacity. It does not record a separate submission of the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning

The order is an order of the Court by B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan, JJ. The order has no numbered paragraphs, so each step ends with a reference to the Order of the Court.

Order of the Court

Constitutional duty and the Court's concern

1. Held: Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A, by themselves and collectively, cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The Court has been concerned because enforcement agencies made little effort, though adequate laws were in place. On 23 September 1986 it first directed the Delhi Administration to file an affidavit on controlling vehicle emissions. (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: Its concern in all orders since 1986 has been to protect the health of the people of Delhi. Its interventions led to the list of measures in Facts. (Order of the Court)
4. Noted: The Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority is a statutory authority under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Its directions are final and binding on all persons. The Court cites Sector 14 Residents Welfare Association v. State of Delhi ([1999] 1 SCC 161). (Order of the Court)
5. Noted: The Authority directed phasing out non-CNG buses, and the Bhure Lal Committee recommended CNG. The Court accepted the report in its order of 28 July 1998. (Order of the Court)
6. Noted: The Court had earlier referred to CNG in its orders of 21 October 1994, 28 March 1995 and 9 February 1996. (Order of the Court)

The Union's conduct and the Mashelkar Committee

1. Held: It is unfortunate that the efforts of the authorities have not kept pace with the Court's orders. The response of the Union of India is baffling, to say the least. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The Court extended time so as not to disrupt bus services. The Union's action from January 2001 to February 2002 leaves no doubt that it intends to frustrate the Court's orders. (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: The Union tried to discredit CNG, represent that CNG is in short supply, and delay setting up dispensing stations. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: The Union set up the Mashelkar Committee only after the order of 31 January 2001 noted its apathy. No member was a doctor or public health expert, and the report shows no serious concern for people's health. (Order of the Court)
5. Held: The Committee overlooked that emission norms had long existed with hardly any compliance. (Order of the Court)
6. Noted: Delhi was the third most polluted city in the world before 1996. (Order of the Court)
7. Noted: Building regulations have not stopped illegal construction and effluent norms have not prevented pollution. The Court says "Yamuna is no more a holy river", and that the BOD level is zero. (Order of the Court)
8. Held: It is naive to expect that fresh emission norms will be enough to check vehicular pollution. (Order of the Court)

The principles behind the Court's approach

1. Noted: Sustainable development requires ecologically sustainable development. Its two essential features are the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The precautionary principle was elucidated in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India ([1996] 5 SCC 647). (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: The State and statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Lack of scientific certainty is not a reason for postponing measures where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage. (Order of the Court)
4. Noted: The onus of proof is on the actor or developer to show that the action is environmentally benign. Permission to use automobiles has environmental implications, so any auto policy must conform to constitutional principles and statutory duties under the Environment (Protection) Act. (Order of the Court)
5. Noted: The auto policy must anticipate and prevent the cause of degradation, lean in favour of environmental protection where information is lacking, and presume an activity harmful unless proved benign. It must balance transport with protection of the environment and give priority to the environment over economic issues. (Order of the Court)
6. Held: Norms for emissions and fuel have existed for two decades and the state of the environment is dismal. To limit the Government's role to specifying norms is "a clear abdication of the constitutional and statutory duty cast upon the Government to protect and preserve the environment". It is in the teeth of the precautionary principle. (Order of the Court)

The Union's application for variation

1. Held: The Bhure Lal recommendations and the 1998 directions were not challenged by the Union. The directions are statutory and continue in force. The Union cannot seek variation without a justifiable reason. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The Union never opposed the change to CNG before its affidavit of 26 April 2001. I.A. No. 116 was dismissed on 27 April 2001. (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: On 17 September 2001, in dealing with I.A. No. 142, the Court said it saw no justification to grant prayer (d) at this stage. It also said the order of 28 July 1998 on the city bus fleet does not require modification. (Order of the Court)
4. Noted: Mr. Rohtagi argued that the words at this stage allowed a later request. (Order of the Court)
5. Held: The plea cannot be accepted. The words only meant at this late stage. They cannot permit the Union to ask again for modification of the order on the city bus fleet. (Order of the Court)

The plea of CNG shortage

1. Held: The plea that CNG is in short supply is incorrect and is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the Court's orders. No CNG is imported, and indigenous production far exceeds transport supply. (Order of the Court)
2. Held: Even during the proceedings, the allocation of CNG to industries was increased. CNG earmarked for the uncommissioned Pragati Power Station was diverted to industries near Delhi. (Order of the Court)
3. Held: "the priority must be of public health, as opposed to the health of the balance sheet of a private company". Letting industries cut losses or make more profit at the cost of public health is not good governance and is contrary to Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: The Union's argument on price overlooks that IGL is a government company. The Government gets at least four times more from the transport sector than from industry. (Order of the Court)
5. Held: The proposal to cut CNG to MUL was for some oblique purpose. There was no pro rata cut for all industrial units. The cut would raise the Government's expenses and lower MUL's value, though the Government proposes to disinvest its share in MUL. It appears to punish MUL because its Managing Director is on the Bhure Lal Committee. (Order of the Court)
6. Held: There is a desire to benefit private industry at the cost of public health and the public exchequer. (Order of the Court)
7. Held: Even if CNG were short in transport, crude oil is imported for refineries, so there is no reason CNG cannot be imported, since it ensures less pollution. (Order of the Court)

Health evidence

1. Noted: The literature filed correlates air pollution with cardiovascular and respiratory disease and the carcinogenic nature of respirable particulate matter (RSPM), PM10. Fine particles are particularly dangerous. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The JAMA study found each rise of 10 ug/cum of fine particles raised the risk of lung cancer by 8 per cent. The USEPA and Indian standards and Delhi's levels are compared. (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: The Bangalore and Kolkata studies on children and the Indian Journal of Medical Research of July 2000 blame ambient air pollution. The World Bank estimate is Rs 5,550 crores nationally and about Rs 1,000 crores for Delhi. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: The precautionary principle in sustainable development would have expected the Government and health authorities to act. But children "do not agitate or hold rallies and, therefore, their sound is not heard". The Government seems concerned to protect the financial health of polluters, including oil companies. By present international standards they produce low quality petrol and diesel at the cost of public health. (Order of the Court)
5. Noted: In Bhopal the nation, including the Union, was rightly agitated and sought action and compensation from the multinational company. Here the shoe is on the other foot, because the Government is not facilitating clean air and water, including CNG or other clean fuel. (Order of the Court)
6. Held: Continuing air pollution has a more devastating effect than the Bhopal gas tragedy. That was a one time event, but here far greater tragedies take place every day through the degradation of public health. (Order of the Court)
7. Held: It is the duty of the Court to direct steps to clean the air so that future generations do not suffer ill-health. It reiterates the order of 28 July 1998 and issues further directions. (Order of the Court)
8. Noted: Vehicular pollution is only one cause of air pollution but it is the major source in metropolitan towns. (Order of the Court)
9. Noted: The Central Pollution Control Board magazine Parivesh (September 2001) is quoted. Diesel exhaust has fine particles that are easily respirable and carcinogenic. A Swedish study says the carcinogenic effect of one new diesel car equals 24 petrol cars and 84 new CNG cars. (Order of the Court)
10. Noted: The same issue lists the share of deaths and burden of disease from air pollution related illnesses in India, as follows, with deaths and national burden of disease (NBD). Acute respiratory disease is 12% of deaths and 13% of NBD, the largest fraction in the world, and ARI in children under 5 is over 2% of the entire global burden. COPD is 1.5% and 0.9%. Lung cancer is 0.4% and 0.1%. Asthma is 0.2% and 0.5%. Tuberculosis is 8% and 5%, the largest in the world. Perinatal conditions are 6% and 7.5%, the largest in the world. Cardiovascular disease is 17% and 5%. Blindness is 0% and 1%, the largest in the world. (Order of the Court)
11. Noted: The extract says diesel engines are popular in heavy duty use for fuel efficiency and long service relative to the gasoline engine. Diesel emissions are lower in carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide, but higher in oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter. (Order of the Court)
12. Noted: Diesel exhaust is a mix of particulate and gaseous phases. Once emitted, its components undergo atmospheric transformation, and nitro-PAHs formed in the air can be more potent mutagens and carcinogens. (Order of the Court)
13. Held: Air pollution needs to be controlled, and reducing diesel use is one measure. The Bhure Lal Committee recommended CNG, accepted by all parties, including the Union, in July 1998. (Order of the Court)

Diesel versus CNG

1. Held: There is no valid basis for the Union's claim that a mix of diesel and CNG buses would differ by only 2% in pollution. Data from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) shows CNG emissions are far below even Euro-IV standards. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: The Court tabulates ARAI data comparing 1992 and 1996 standards, Bharat Stage I and II, Euro 3 and 4 standards and the Ashok Leyland and TELCO CNG buses. The columns are sulphur level in diesel, hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The 1992 standards are 3.5, 14.4, 18 and no standard, and the 1996 standards are 2.4, 11.2, 14.4 and no standard. Bharat Stage I (April 2000) is 1.23, 4.9 (printed as 49), 9 and 0.40. Bharat Stage II or Euro 2 (October 2001) is sulphur 500 ppm (0.05 per cent), 1.1, 4.0, 7 and 0.15. Euro 3 is 350 ppm (0.035 per cent), 0.66, 2.1, 5 and 0.10, and Euro 4 is 50-10 ppm (0.005-0.001 per cent), 0.46, 1.5, 3.5 and 0.02. The Ashok Leyland CNG bus shows nil sulphur, hydrocarbon 0.04, carbon monoxide 2.92, nitrogen oxide 2.91 and particulates 0.01. The TELCO bus shows nil, 0.25, 1.68, 3.42 and 0.03. Non-methane hydrocarbon is a small fraction of total hydrocarbon in CNG vehicles, and the ARAI certificate says particulates are negligible. The sources are CPCB 2000, the Gazette notification of 24 April 2001 (GSR 286(E)), JS McArragher et al 1999 (CONCAWE), and Ashok Leyland and TELCO 2001 ARAI data. (Order of the Court)
3. Noted: Only Euro IV diesel vehicles are comparable to CNG vehicles. The ARAI certificate says particulate emissions were negligible and could not be measured. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: With emissions more than comparable to Euro-IV, the 2% contention is patently untenable. For particulates, CNG vehicles are 15 times better than Euro-II diesel vehicles. (Order of the Court)
5. Held: The analysis shows the need to change to non-liquid fuel like CNG or LPG for the whole country. This may obviate the need for vehicles meeting Euro III or IV. (Order of the Court)
6. Noted: Orders of the Court stabilised Delhi's air pollution. Annual RSPM fell to 186 ug/cum from 222, which is no small achievement. It is still roughly 3 times the national standard under the Air Act, 1981. (Order of the Court)

Technology, adulteration and gas supply

1. Noted: The Union and the State said CNG technology is still evolving, and no other city introduced CNG buses at this scale. (Order of the Court)
2. Held: Most industrialised cities do not have many CNG buses, but the share of natural gas buses is growing. In the US, CNG buses are 18 per cent of current bus orders and 28 per cent of potential orders. Beijing had 1,300 CNG buses by 1999, and is preparing for the 2004 Olympics. Beijing plans 18,000 buses on CNG, LPG and electricity and South Korea plans 20,000 natural gas buses for the 2002 World Cup and already has 3,000 plying. (Order of the Court)
3. Held: CNG, LPG and electricity are a preferred technology that critically polluted cities like Delhi need as a leapfrogging option. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: The Court is concerned about adulteration of petroleum products. The Bhure Lal report confirms it, with a sample failure rate of 26 per cent. The tests are inadequate: a 15 per cent kerosene sample failed, but samples with 10 and 20 per cent kerosene passed. (Order of the Court)
5. Held: Lowering sulphur and benzene will have little effect unless oil companies guarantee pure fuel. One public sector undertaking advertises pure for sure, which acknowledges adulteration. (Order of the Court)
6. Held: There is strong basis for the allegation that adulteration yields illegal profits. That explains stiff resistance to switching to gas, which cannot be adulterated and would cause loss to the unholy alliance of adulterators. (Order of the Court)
7. Noted: It would normally be surprising to cut supply to a public sector undertaking during a shortage, while supply to at least two big business houses is increased. (Order of the Court)
8. Held: There is no apparent shortage of gas. Supply from the South Bassein gas fields rose from 38 to 41 mmscmd, and investment is sanctioned for infrastructure to northern India. (Order of the Court)
9. Held: The chance of the pipeline breaking down is remote, and the pipeline stores up to three months of gas for Delhi. (Order of the Court)
10. Noted: Delhi needs only 4.8 per cent of the supply of the HBJ pipeline. The increased production has gone to industries, with additional allocations of 0.7 mmscmd to Reliance Industries, 0.4 to Essar, 0.4 to Gujarat State Fertilizer Corporation and 0.85 to IPCL-Dahej. GIPCL, a power company in Baroda, got 0.5 mmscmd reportedly without any allocation by the Government, as a matter of favour. (Order of the Court)
11. Held: The Union must allocate more gas to Delhi. Diverting gas from MUL alone will be inadequate. (Order of the Court)

Phasing out diesel buses and closing observations

1. Noted: 1,500 buses can be replaced immediately because the persons who ordered them have not taken delivery. The permits given are to be time bound. (Order of the Court)
2. Noted: There are 3,727 CNG buses. 6,338 more must be phased out. The manufacturers' capacity is 800 buses a month at 70 per cent, so the remaining 4,838 buses plus 1,500 ready chassis can be replaced within 7 or 8 months. (Order of the Court)
3. Held: The Government's request to phase out 200 buses a month rests on an imaginary shortage of gas. No credible material shows that gas distribution is consistent with sustainable development. Giving industry cheap gas ahead of environmental need is inconsistent with the settled constitutional position. (Order of the Court)
4. Held: Though the time for phasing out diesel buses has expired, a different formula is needed to cause little inconvenience to the public and punish the wrong doer. Diesel buses running until replaced must pay Rs 500 per bus per day for 30 days and Rs 1,000 per day afterwards, deposited with the Director of Transport, Delhi. (Order of the Court)
5. Noted: The Union says LPG is permitted as fuel for transport. The Court says it can and should be an alternate fuel to CNG, as it is environmentally acceptable at present. The Government should increase its supply. (Order of the Court)
6. Noted: At least nine other cities have critical air quality: Agra, Lucknow, Jharia, Kanpur, Varanasi, Faridabad, Patna, Jodhpur and Pune. There is no effective action plan, and it may become necessary to pass orders for their relief. (Order of the Court)
7. Held: Lack of CNG supply has long been a concern, and there is no alternative to issuing the directions in the Judgement. (Order of the Court)
8. Held: Orders of this Court "cannot be nullified or modified or in any way altered by any administrative decision". Continuing to ply diesel buses is a clear violation of its orders. (Order of the Court)

Authorities

• Sector 14 Residents Welfare Association v. State of Delhi ([1999] 1 SCC 161): the directions of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority are final and binding (Order of the Court).
• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India ([1996] 5 SCC 647): the precautionary principle, with onus on the developer. Applied (Order of the Court).
• Court's earlier orders: 23 September 1986, 21 October 1994, 28 March 1995, 9 February 1996, 28 July 1998, 31 January 2001, 26 March 2001, 27 April 2001 and 17 September 2001.
• Other sources: JAMA study; USEPA standard; Chittaranjan Cancer Institute study; Indian Journal of Medical Research (July 2000); World Bank study; CPCB magazine Parivesh (September 2001); ARAI data; Moon-soo Ahn, Korean CNG bus programme (2000).
• Names as spelt in the source text: Sector 14 Residents W elf are Association and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Ors.; Vellore Citizens'Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors.

Provisions mentioned

• Article 39(e), Article 47 and Article 48A, Constitution: health of workers and people; improvement of public health; protection of the environment. They cast a duty on the State.
• Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: source of the Bhure Lal Committee and the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: national standard for annual average RSPM.
• Bharat Stage I and II; Euro 2, 3 and 4 standards: emission norms compared with CNG in the ARAI table.

Judgement

1. The Union of India must give priority to the transport sector, including private vehicles all over India, in allocating CNG. CNG goes first to transport in Delhi and other air polluted cities. Only what remains goes to industries, with preference to public sector undertakings and power projects.
2. The Union's I.A. for extension of time to run diesel buses is dismissed with costs of Rs 20,000. Orders of this Court cannot be nullified by any administrative decision of the Central or State Governments, and the decision to continue diesel buses violates its orders.
3. Those who placed orders with bus manufacturers and did not take delivery must do so within two weeks. Otherwise their permits are automatically cancelled.
4. Owners of diesel buses that ply beyond 31 January 2002 must pay costs of Rs 500 per bus per day, rising to Rs 1,000 per day after 30 days. This applies from the next day. The Director of Transport, Delhi must collect it and deposit it in this Court by the 10th day of every month.
5. The NCT of Delhi must phase out 800 diesel buses per month, starting from 1 May 2002. Until all diesel buses are replaced, the bus owners who continue to ply them must pay as under direction 4.
6. The Union of India and all governmental authorities, including IGL, must allocate and make available 16.1 lakh kg per day (2 mmscmd) of CNG in the NCT of Delhi by 30 June 2002 for transport.
7. They must increase the supply whenever needed, and prepare a scheme with a time schedule for CNG supply to other polluted cities and file it by 9 May 2002.
8. The Union may supply LPG in addition to CNG as an alternate fuel, or any other clean non-adulterable fuel that the Bhure Lal Committee may recommend.
9. The Union and the NCT of Delhi must frame a financing scheme, like the NCT's scheme for CNG vans as taxis for SC/ST. Permits of diesel bus owners cancelled for non-conversion are to go first to SC/ST and other weaker sections. A compliance report must be filed within four weeks, and the costs deposited under direction 4 can fund the scheme.
10. The matter is to come up on 9 May 2002, by which date the Union and the NCT of Delhi must file a further report. The matter is pending.

Legal Principle / Ratio

Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A place a duty on the State to secure public health and protect the environment. The Union cannot vary the Court's orders on CNG conversion by pleas of shortage or by administrative decisions, and public health has priority over the profit of industry. In the Court's words, Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A "by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The Court read the Union's conduct as an attempt to frustrate its orders. It relies on the conduct from January 2001 to February 2002 and on the uneven allocation of gas. The order does not record a separate finding of contempt.

The order relies on scientific and price data filed in Court. It uses ARAI data, health studies and gas allocation figures. The order does not say the Union's contrary data was tested by cross-examination.

The Court left some questions to later. It listed the case for 9 May 2002 and said action for nine other polluted cities may be needed. The order does not set final orders for them.

Significance

• The Court confirmed that its order for CNG conversion of the Delhi bus fleet stands and cannot be varied by administrative decision.
• It held that public health has priority over industry's profit in allocating scarce gas.
• It applied the precautionary principle, and named the polluter pays principle as a feature of sustainable development. It also imposed costs on diesel buses that stayed on the road.
• It gave directions on CNG supply to Delhi and other polluted cities and on the fate of cancelled permits.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: the Union sought more time and a diesel and CNG mix. The Court refused and ordered 800 diesel buses phased out each month from 1 May 2002.
• Rule: Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A cast a duty on the State to secure health and the environment.
• Rule: the precautionary principle puts the onus on the actor, and priority goes to the environment over economic issues.
• Trap: at this stage in the order of 17 September 2001 means at this late stage. It did not allow a fresh request.
• Trap: LPG is allowed as an alternate fuel to CNG. The order is not limited to CNG.
• Directions: 16.1 lakh kg per day of CNG by 30 June 2002, costs of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 per diesel bus per day, and Rs 20,000 costs on the Union.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.