M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case)

Delhi's population had grown about 18 times since 1947, and its vehicles by about one lakh every year. On a public interest petition by M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court set up a committee to study vehicular pollution in Delhi and kept the petition pending for monitoring.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in)

Parties

M.C. Mehta — petitioner. A practising advocate and Chairman of the Environment Protection Cell in Delhi. He appeared in person.

Union of India and others — respondents.

Central Pollution Control Board — respondent no. 3. The Central Board set up under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) — respondent no. 5. It runs public transport in Delhi with thousands of buses. It was added as a party because it is alleged to be a well-known polluting agency.

Hindustan Insecticides Limited — respondent no. 6. One of the industries that grew close to human habitation.

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) — its generating units are covered by the petition.

Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers — applied to intervene and was present in Court. Its representative, Shri Sudhakar Girdharlal Shah, was made a member of the committee.

Procedural History

1. The petitioner filed this application under Article 32 of the Constitution in the public interest litigation sector (Writ Petition No. 13029 of 1985, original jurisdiction).
2. During the hearing, the Court asked counsel to treat the problem as a matter for useful deliberation and not as adversarial litigation.
3. The Court was shown literature and gadgets that might reduce pollution. It also heard suggestions on eliminating motor spirit and replacing two-wheelers with battery-operated ones.
4. The Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers applied for intervention and was present in Court.
5. The Ministry of Environment and Forests instructed the Attorney General in writing that a committee could be set up by the Court. A copy was placed on the record.
6. On 14 March 1991, the Court delivered this judgment, made an interim order and kept the petition pending for monitoring. The judgment was delivered by Ranganath Misra, C.J.

Facts

1. The petitioner is a practising advocate and Chairman of the Environment Protection Cell in Delhi. He filed a public interest litigation (a case filed for the public good) under Article 32.
2. He asked the Court to direct the closing down of hazardous industries in the densely populated areas of Delhi.
3. He also asked for regulation of air pollution caused by automobiles in the area and by the thermal units generating power for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU).
4. The Union Territory of Delhi had a total population of about 96 lakhs. The urban area of old Delhi, New Delhi and the Cantonment had around 90 lakhs.
5. In 1947 Delhi had a little over 5 lakhs. The population had multiplied 18 times in a little more than 40 years. Some pockets were very dense and congested.
6. Delhi was the capital of empires of the north and of the Mughals. The British shifted the capital of the Indian empire from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911.
7. Industries grew on the outskirts as Delhi gained importance. Lack of vision let them grow perilously close to human habitation. The industrial belt later became part of the city.
8. Hindustan Insecticides Limited, respondent no. 6, is one such industry.
9. DESU has three generating units, all inside the densely populated area: the Indraprastha Power Station, the GT Power Station and the RPR Power Station.
10. The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) runs thousands of buses. It was added as respondent no. 5 on the allegation that it is a well-known polluting agency.
11. A monitoring committee on ambient and automotive emission levels was set up at the instance of the Director of Transport, Delhi Administration. It studied the impact of surface transport on Delhi's air.
12. On 31 March 1982, Delhi had 5,92,584 vehicles. Two-wheelers were 65 per cent and three-wheelers 3.5 per cent. Cars, jeeps and other medium-size vehicles were 25 per cent, buses 1.5 per cent and goods carriers the remaining 7 per cent.
13. The affidavit of the Deputy Director of Transport, Delhi Administration, put the vehicle population of 1990 at 13.5 lakhs.
14. That is an increase of about 8 lakhs in about 8 years, or about 1 lakh vehicles every year. The share of two-wheelers had perhaps not changed much.
15. The Deputy Director said automobiles contribute about 50 per cent of the pollution. The Court said there is material to suggest the share is higher.
16. Two-wheelers and three-wheelers give over sixty per cent of the total carbon monoxide emission and about eighty per cent of the total hydrocarbons.
17. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was enacted to meet the task of controlling pollution. Respondent 3 is the Central Board set up under it.
18. The Act allows Government, in consultation with the Board, to instruct the Transport Authorities to develop expertise by taking a vehicular pollution survey. Delhi was chosen on a selective basis because it has the highest traffic volume.
19. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 makes certain provisions for regulating emissions.
20. The Delhi Administration's Transport Authorities placed facts and figures on the steps taken under that Act. The normal steps were emission checking, prosecution and cancellation of registration.
21. The Ministry of Environment and Forests told the Attorney General in writing that a committee could be set up by the Court. It agreed that a retired Judge of this Court could chair it.
22. The Ministry suggested Shri M.C. Mehta, the petitioner, and Shri N.S. Tiwana, Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board, as members.

Issues Raised

The judgment does not frame numbered issues. The questions it deals with are:

1. How should the Court respond to the petitioner's request to regulate air pollution from automobiles in Delhi?
2. Were the emission checks, prosecutions and registration cancellations by the Delhi Administration adequate to control vehicular pollution?
3. Should a committee be set up by the Court to look into vehicular pollution in Delhi and devise methods of solution? If so, who should be on it, and with what terms of reference?

Arguments Contended

The judgment does not set out the arguments of counsel in detail. It records only what follows.

For the petitioner (M.C. Mehta)

1. The petitioner asked for directions to close down hazardous industries in the densely populated areas of Delhi.
2. He asked for regulation of air pollution from automobiles operating in Delhi and from the DESU thermal units.
3. DTC was added as a respondent on the allegation that it is one of the notorious polluting agencies.
4. The judgment records no other argument from the petitioner.

For the respondents

The points below are what the respondents filed or said. They are not recorded as arguments against the petition.

1. The Deputy Director of Transport, Delhi Administration, said in an affidavit that automobiles contribute about 50 per cent of the polluting factor.
2. The Transport Authorities placed facts and figures on the steps taken under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. These were emission checking, prosecution and cancellation of registration.
3. The Ministry of Environment and Forests told the Attorney General in writing that a committee could be set up by the Court. It agreed to a retired Judge of this Court as Chairman. It suggested the petitioner and the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board as members.
4. The Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers applied for intervention and took part in the deliberations. The judgment records no separate argument from it.
5. The judgment records no argument from Hindustan Insecticides Limited, DTC or DESU.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment was delivered by Ranganath Misra, C.J. for the Bench, which also included M.H. Kania and Kuldip Singh, JJ. It has no numbered paragraphs, and no separate opinion is recorded. Every block of the judgment is covered below.

Ranganath Misra, C.J.

1. Noted: the petition is an application under Article 32 in the public interest litigation sector. The Court was asked to direct closure of hazardous industries in densely populated Delhi and to regulate air pollution from automobiles and the DESU thermal units.
2. Noted: Delhi's population is about 96 lakhs, of which about 90 lakhs are urban. It has grown 18 times since 1947, and some pockets are very dense.
3. Noted: environmental pollution is a global problem. It concerns all countries whatever their size, level of development or ideology.
4. Noted: the oceanic world is an inter-connected whole, and winds carry pollution from continent to continent. The judgment gives examples. A nuclear test by the USSR may harm neighbouring countries more than a full-fledged war. So may careless disposal of radio-active waste from a remote energy plant.
5. Noted: the informed public mind is already agitated over the polluting effect of the Gulf War. It is also anxious about acid rain and toxic effects on the seas and the atmosphere.
6. Noted: awareness of the interaction between man and environment is of recent origin. The Court quoted the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, June 1972).
7. Noted: the Stockholm Declaration says man is both creature and moulder of his environment. Science and technology have given man power to transform it on an unprecedented scale. Both the natural and the man-made environment are essential to well-being and to enjoying basic human rights, even life itself.
8. Noted: Principle No. 1 of the Declaration says man has a fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life. The environment must be of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being. Man bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve it for present and future generations.
9. Noted: undeveloped and under-developed communities are closer to nature than developed ones. Our ancestors realised the tie between man and his environment. The Court quoted a passage from the Samaveda on the flute of divine love, with earth, seas, sky and stars woven together by divine music.
10. Noted: the Court quoted Norman Myers, cited in Sir Edmund Hillary's Ecology 2,000. He said the fate of African environments is influenced by the lifestyles of the developed world. These economic-ecological links are little recognised, but they matter for land use in Africa's savannahs.
11. Noted: the Forty-Second Amendment introduced Article 48A and Article 51A. Article 48A says the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
12. Noted: Article 51A(g) (printed in the judgment as Article 51A and Article 51 A) is a duty of every citizen. It is to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, rivers and wild life. It also asks for compassion for living creatures.
13. Held: the Directive Principles make protection of the environment a State obligation. Article 51A makes it a citizen's fundamental duty. Together they show constitutional recognition of the importance of the environment to life, both flora and fauna.
14. Noted: India is a great country by territory, population and legacy. It is politically divided into many States but bound by a common culture. Delhi became the capital of empires of the north. The British moved their capital from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911.
15. Noted: industries developed on the outskirts as Delhi grew in importance. Lack of vision and inadequate statesmanship let them grow perilously close to human habitation, and the industrial belt became part of the city.
16. Noted: Hindustan Insecticides Limited (respondent no. 6) is one such industry. DESU's three units are inside the dense area. DTC was made respondent no. 5 as a well-known polluting agency.
17. Noted: a monitoring committee on ambient and automotive emission levels was set up at the instance of the Director of Transport, Delhi Administration. It studied the impact of surface transport on Delhi's air.
18. Noted: on 31 March 1982 Delhi had 5,92,584 vehicles. 65 per cent were two-wheelers, 3.5 per cent three-wheelers, 25 per cent cars, jeeps and medium vehicles, 1.5 per cent buses and 7 per cent goods carriers.
19. Noted: the 1990 vehicle population was 13.5 lakhs. That is about 8 lakhs more in about 8 years, or about 1 lakh a year. The share of two-wheelers has perhaps not been seriously disturbed.
20. Noted: the Deputy Director of Transport said automobiles contribute about 50 per cent of pollution. The Court said there is material to suggest the proportion is still higher.
21. Noted: two-wheelers and three-wheelers give over sixty per cent of the carbon monoxide and about eighty per cent of the hydrocarbons.
22. Noted: the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was enacted to meet the challenge. Respondent 3 is the Central Board under that Act.
23. Noted: the Act lets Government, in consultation with the Board, instruct the Transport Authorities to build expertise by taking a vehicular pollution survey. Delhi was chosen on a selective basis because it has the highest traffic volume.
24. Noted: the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 makes provisions for regulating emissions. The Delhi Administration's Transport Authorities placed figures on steps taken under it. These were emission checking, prosecution and steps for cancelling registration.
25. Held: the Court was not satisfied that the action taken was adequate. The challenging task of pollution control could not be dealt with successfully that way.
26. Held: "Law alone also cannot help in restoring a balance in the biospheric disturbance." Funds cannot help effectively either. The situation needs a clear perception and imaginative planning, and sustained, result-oriented, strategic action.
27. Held: a campaign to awaken people who use automobiles of different classifications, and people living in the capital, is an indispensable preliminary. All users of automobiles should know the harmful effect of emissions on the community, including on those who use the vehicles.
28. Why: until that is done effectively, the right attitude would not develop, and cooperation for reducing pollution would not emerge.
29. Noted: the Court quoted a journal, Environmental Policy & Law (vol. 13, nos. 1-2, Spring 1983, North-Holland). It said measures then in use were not enough against air pollution from road traffic.
30. Noted: the extract said the problem exists in every town and city. Norms for motor vehicle exhausts were not adequate to reach the needed reductions quickly. The problem was in part increasing, for private cars, especially diesel-powered ones, and for commercial vehicles.
31. Noted: the extract said that, despite legal and other limits, some strategies had helped or had at least improved attitudes. In formulating smog regulations, Munich and Berlin gave a positive stimulus to buying vehicles fitted with catalytic converters. Some authorities followed a deliberate policy of buying city-owned vehicles with improved exhaust systems.
32. Noted: during the hearing the Court asked counsel to treat the problem as more than adversarial litigation and to come forward with useful deliberations. Literature and gadgets that might reduce pollution were shown to it.
33. Noted: the question of eliminating motor spirit and replacing two-wheelers with battery-operated ones was raised. The Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers applied for intervention and was present in Court.
34. Noted: some aspects were sufficiently technical, and others needed laboratory testing and a probe into efficacy. So the Court considered setting up a high-powered committee.
35. Noted: the Ministry of Environment and Forests instructed the Attorney General in writing that a committee could be set up by the Court. It could look into vehicular pollution in Delhi and devise methods of solution.
36. Noted: the Ministry agreed that a retired Judge of this Court could be Chairman. It suggested the petitioner and Shri N.S. Tiwana, Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board, as members.
37. Held: the Ministry's suggestion is acceptable, subject to a modification. Shri Sudhakar Girdharlal Shah, representing the Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, can be a member.
38. Held: the Committee shall have power to co-opt experts, not exceeding three, for its efficient working from time to time.
39. Held: Shri Justice K.N. Saikia, a recently retired Judge of this Court, is appointed Chairman. The members are Shri N.S. Tiwana, Shri M.C. Mehta and Shri S.G. Shah.
40. Held: the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests shall be the convenor Secretary. Justice Saikia is entitled to all benefits of a retired Judge of this Court called back to duty.
41. Held: the Committee may be constituted with effect from 18 March 1991, under an appropriate Notification of the Union Government in the relevant Ministry.
42. Noted: the Ministry recommended five terms of reference for the time being. They are listed under Judgement below. For now the Committee shall proceed to consider these, and it may also take other relevant aspects into consideration.
43. Held: "This writ petition shall be deemed to be pending for the purpose of monitoring." The Committee shall report to the Court once in two months on steps taken.
44. Held: the Union Government and the Delhi Administration must cooperate effectively with the Committee for its successful operation.

Authorities

• Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, June 1972: quoted for the statement on man and his environment and for Principle No. 1.
• Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, inserted by the Forty-Second Amendment: quoted in the text of the judgment.
• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Motor Vehicles Act, 1989: mentioned as the statutes for controlling and regulating vehicular emissions.
• Norman Myers, quoted in Sir Edmund Hillary's Ecology 2,000: quoted on links between African environments and the developed world.
• Journal Environmental Policy & Law, vol. 13, nos. 1-2 (Spring 1983): extract quoted on air pollution from road traffic.
• No decided case is cited in the judgment.

Judgement

The Court made an interim order and kept the writ petition pending for the purpose of monitoring. It directed:

1. A Committee is set up to look into vehicular pollution in Delhi and to devise methods of solution.
2. Justice K.N. Saikia, a recently retired Judge of this Court, is the Chairman. The members are Shri N.S. Tiwana (Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board), Shri M.C. Mehta (the petitioner) and Shri S.G. Shah (representing the Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers).
3. The Committee may co-opt experts, not exceeding three, from time to time.
4. The Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests is the convenor Secretary.
5. Justice Saikia gets all benefits of a retired Judge of this Court called back to duty.
6. The Committee may be constituted with effect from 18 March 1991 under an appropriate Notification of the Union Government in the relevant Ministry.
7. The terms of reference for the time being are:
   1. to assess the technologies available in the world for controlling vehicular pollution;
   2. to assess the current status of technology available in India for controlling vehicular pollution;
   3. to look at low-cost alternatives for operating vehicles at reduced pollution levels in the metropolitan cities of India;
   4. to examine the feasibility of measures to reduce or eliminate pollution from motor vehicles, in the short term and the long term, and make appropriate recommendations; and
   5. to make specific recommendations on the administrative and legal regulations required to implement the recommendations in (iii).
8. The Committee may consider other relevant aspects for the time being.
9. The writ petition is deemed pending for the purpose of monitoring.
10. The Committee shall report to the Court once in two months on the steps taken.
11. The Union Government and the Delhi Administration shall cooperate effectively with the Committee.

Costs: none are ordered in the judgment. The judgment ends with the note "Petition pending for monitoring".

Legal Principle / Ratio

The Court treated protection of the environment as a constitutional concern under Articles 48A and 51A(g). It held that law and funds alone cannot control vehicular pollution, and it set up an expert committee under continuing supervision. The key direction is: "This writ petition shall be deemed to be pending for the purpose of monitoring."

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• This is an interim order. The Court decided no question on the merits about industries, DESU units or DTC buses, though the petition asked for those directions.
• The Court found the existing steps (emission checking, prosecution, cancelling registration) inadequate. The judgment gives no data to show how they fell short.
• The judgment does not say what happens to the petitioner's request to close hazardous industries. The order deals only with vehicular pollution.
• The Committee's power is limited to studying and recommending. The judgment does not say who will make the recommendations binding.

Significance

• The Court kept the petition pending for monitoring, with regular reports from the Committee.
• It puts the citizen's fundamental duty (Article 51A(g)) and the State's duty (Article 48A) at the centre of an environmental case.
• It treats a public interest litigation as a cooperative search for solutions and not adversarial litigation.
• It uses expert bodies and industry representation, since the questions are technical and need laboratory testing.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: the Court kept the petition pending for monitoring, and the Committee reports every two months.
• Rule: the Committee is chaired by Justice K.N. Saikia. It runs from 18 March 1991.
• Rule: law alone cannot help. Public awareness among automobile users is an indispensable preliminary.
• Numbers to remember: Delhi had 5,92,584 vehicles on 31 March 1982 and 13.5 lakhs in 1990. Two- and three-wheelers give over 60 per cent of carbon monoxide and about 80 per cent of hydrocarbons.
• Trap: this M.C. Mehta case is the 1991 interim order on Delhi vehicular pollution. It is not the Ganga or Taj case.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited. The petition number is stated in the judgment.