LEGAL ISSUE: Environmental pollution caused by heavy-duty vehicles at Inland Container Depots (ICDs).
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law
Case Name: Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Ajay Khera & Ors.
Judgment Date: 11 January 2024
Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 31
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can the operation of an Inland Container Depot (ICD) contribute to air pollution, infringing upon the fundamental right to a clean environment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment concerning the Inland Container Depot at Tughlakabad, Delhi. The court examined the environmental impact of heavy-duty diesel vehicles operating at the ICD and issued directives to mitigate pollution. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
The case originated from an application filed by the first respondent, a former Executive Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation, before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The application raised concerns about the pollution caused by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad. The applicant contended that the ICD was being used by trucks and trailers not destined for Delhi, leading to increased air pollution due to emissions. The applicant sought directions to shift operations of the ICD not bound for Delhi to other locations and to prohibit the entry of non-Delhi bound vehicles at the ICD. The Container Corporation of India Ltd. (the appellant) contested the application, arguing that diverting the ICD’s use would increase road transport and pollution.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | First respondent filed an application before the NGT regarding pollution from the Tughlakabad ICD. |
| 8th March 2019 | NGT directed the appellant to shift to electric, hybrid, and CNG vehicles in a phased manner. |
| 22nd April 2019 | Supreme Court issued notice on the appeal and stayed coercive action against the appellant. |
| 10th February 2020 | Supreme Court directed the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to investigate the issues. |
| 30th June 2020 | EPCA submitted its report. |
| February 2021 | KPMG submitted a report on improving parking management at the ICD |
| 11th January 2024 | Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. |
| 31st July 2024 | Appeal to be listed for reporting compliance. |
Course of Proceedings
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially directed the appellant to transition to electric, hybrid, and CNG vehicles within six months and to submit an action plan within one month. The appellant appealed this order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, recognizing the complexity of the issue, directed the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to investigate and submit a report. The EPCA submitted its report on 30th June 2020, which was then considered by the Supreme Court along with responses from the involved parties.
Legal Framework
The judgment references Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to live in a pollution-free environment. The application before the NGT was filed under Section 14, read with Section 15 and Section 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The court also considered the Handling of Cargo in Areas Regulation, 2009, which mandates safe and secure premises for cargo handling.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life, which includes the right to a pollution-free environment.
- Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
- Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Deals with the powers of the Tribunal.
- Section 18(1), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Deals with the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal.
- Handling of Cargo in Areas Regulation, 2009: Provides for safe and secure premises for cargo handling.
Arguments
Arguments by the First Respondent (Original Applicant):
- ✓ The Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad is a significant source of air pollution in Delhi NCR.
- ✓ The ICD is used by trucks and trailers not destined for Delhi, contributing to unnecessary emissions.
- ✓ There are alternative ICDs around Delhi that can handle the traffic not bound for Delhi.
- ✓ The operation of the ICD violates the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- ✓ The ICD is operating beyond its intended capacity, leading to congestion and further pollution.
- ✓ The Handling of Cargo in Areas Regulation, 2009, mandates safe and spacious premises for handling cargo, which is not being followed.
Arguments by the Appellant (Container Corporation of India Ltd.):
- ✓ The movement of cargo destined for Delhi is primarily by railway lines terminating within the ICD premises.
- ✓ Diverting the ICD’s operations would result in more road transport, leading to increased pollution.
- ✓ The ICD is ideally located to serve the needs of Delhi’s population without disturbing residential areas.
- ✓ Shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid vehicles is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles used for transporting containers.
Arguments by the EPCA:
- ✓ Shift to CNG/Hybrid/Electric is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles.
- ✓ Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) should present a policy for scrappage of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacement with BS VI vehicles.
- ✓ CONCOR should give a plan for the optimal utilization of the inland container depots around Delhi.
- ✓ CONCOR should work with certifying agencies to extend their services to ICDs outside Delhi.
- ✓ CONCOR should provide a time-bound plan for upgrading parking/holding areas.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Pollution from ICD | ICD at Tughlakabad is a major source of air pollution. | First Respondent |
| Pollution from ICD | ICD is used by vehicles not destined for Delhi. | First Respondent |
| Pollution from ICD | Alternative ICDs can handle non-Delhi traffic. | First Respondent |
| Pollution from ICD | Operation of ICD violates Article 21. | First Respondent |
| Pollution from ICD | ICD operates beyond capacity. | First Respondent |
| Pollution from ICD | Handling of Cargo Regulations not followed. | First Respondent |
| ICD Operations | Cargo for Delhi moves by railway within ICD. | Appellant |
| ICD Operations | Diverting ICD will increase road transport and pollution. | Appellant |
| ICD Operations | ICD is ideally located for Delhi. | Appellant |
| ICD Operations | Shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles. | Appellant |
| Alternative Fuel | Shift to CNG/Hybrid/Electric is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles. | EPCA |
| Alternative Fuel | MoRTH should formulate a policy for scrappage of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacement with BS VI vehicles. | EPCA |
| Optimal Utilization | CONCOR should give a plan for the optimal utilization of the inland container depots around Delhi. | EPCA |
| Optimal Utilization | CONCOR should work with certifying agencies to extend their services to ICDs outside Delhi. | EPCA |
| Parking | CONCOR should provide a time-bound plan for upgrading parking/holding areas. | EPCA |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:
- ✓ Whether the operation of the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad contributes to air pollution in Delhi NCR.
- ✓ What measures should be taken to mitigate the environmental impact of the ICD’s operations, particularly concerning heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
- ✓ How to ensure optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi to reduce the burden on the Tughlakabad facility.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Pollution from ICD | The Court acknowledged the significant contribution of heavy-duty diesel vehicles at the ICD to air pollution. |
| Measures to mitigate pollution | The Court directed the Union of India to formulate a policy for phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS-VI vehicles. It also emphasized the need to explore alternative fuel sources. |
| Optimal utilization of ICDs | The Court directed the appellant to formulate a plan for optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi to reduce the burden on the Tughlakabad facility. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court reiterated that the right to life includes the right to a pollution-free environment.
- Report of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA): The Court relied heavily on the EPCA’s recommendations regarding the feasibility of alternative fuels, optimal utilization of ICDs, and parking management.
- Report of KPMG: The Court acknowledged the recommendations made by KPMG regarding parking management at the ICD.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Reiterated as the basis for the right to a pollution-free environment. |
| EPCA Report | Accepted as the basis for recommendations on alternative fuels, ICD utilization, and parking. |
| KPMG Report | Accepted as the basis for improving parking management at the ICD. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| First Respondent | ICD at Tughlakabad is a major source of air pollution. | Accepted as a valid concern. |
| First Respondent | ICD is used by vehicles not destined for Delhi. | Accepted as a contributing factor to pollution. |
| First Respondent | Alternative ICDs can handle non-Delhi traffic. | Accepted as a viable solution. |
| First Respondent | Operation of ICD violates Article 21. | Accepted as a violation of the right to a pollution-free environment. |
| First Respondent | ICD operates beyond capacity. | Accepted as a contributing factor to congestion and pollution. |
| First Respondent | Handling of Cargo Regulations not followed. | Not explicitly addressed but implied in the need for better parking management. |
| Appellant | Cargo for Delhi moves by railway within ICD. | Acknowledged but did not negate the need for pollution control. |
| Appellant | Diverting ICD will increase road transport and pollution. | Acknowledged but addressed through optimal utilization of other ICDs. |
| Appellant | ICD is ideally located for Delhi. | Not considered a valid reason to continue polluting practices. |
| Appellant | Shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles. | Partially accepted; BS-VI vehicles were recommended as an interim measure. |
| EPCA | Shift to CNG/Hybrid/Electric is not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles. | Accepted as a current limitation. |
| EPCA | MoRTH should formulate a policy for scrappage of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacement with BS VI vehicles. | Accepted and directed to be implemented within six months. |
| EPCA | CONCOR should give a plan for the optimal utilization of the inland container depots around Delhi. | Accepted and directed to be implemented within six months. |
| EPCA | CONCOR should work with certifying agencies to extend their services to ICDs outside Delhi. | Accepted and directed to be implemented. |
| EPCA | CONCOR should provide a time-bound plan for upgrading parking/holding areas. | Accepted and directed to be implemented within six months. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court upheld the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment as paramount.
- Report of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA): The Court accepted the EPCA’s recommendations as a practical and balanced approach to addressing the pollution issues.
- Report of KPMG: The Court directed the appellant to implement the recommendations made by KPMG for improving parking management at the ICD.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court recognized the significant contribution of heavy-duty diesel vehicles at the Tughlakabad ICD to air pollution in Delhi NCR. The Court also considered the practical limitations in shifting to alternative fuel technologies for heavy-duty vehicles. The recommendations of the EPCA provided a balanced approach that addressed both the environmental concerns and the operational challenges. The Court emphasized the need for a phased approach, with interim measures like BS-VI vehicles while exploring better fuel sources.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Fundamental Rights (Article 21) | 30% |
| Environmental Concerns | 35% |
| Practical Limitations | 15% |
| EPCA Recommendations | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual analysis included the pollution levels, vehicle types, and the operational aspects of the ICD. The legal analysis focused on the interpretation of Article 21 and the need to balance environmental protection with operational feasibility.
Issue: Whether the operation of the ICD at Tughlakabad contributes to air pollution.
Court’s Analysis: Acknowledged the significant contribution of heavy-duty diesel vehicles to air pollution.
Court’s Decision: Directed the Union of India to formulate a policy to phase out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replace them with BS-VI vehicles.
Issue: What measures should be taken to mitigate the environmental impact?
Court’s Analysis: Considered the feasibility of alternative fuels and the need for optimal utilization of ICDs.
Court’s Decision: Directed the appellant to formulate a plan for optimal utilization of ICDs and to continue exploring alternative fuel sources.
Issue: How to ensure optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi?
Court’s Analysis: Examined the underutilization of other ICDs and the need for better infrastructure.
Court’s Decision: Directed the appellant to coordinate with official agencies to set up central laboratories near ICDs around Delhi NCR.
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that were rejected. The final decision was reached by accepting the EPCA’s recommendations with some modifications and timelines.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- ✓ The fundamental right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ✓ The need to balance environmental protection with operational feasibility.
- ✓ The practical limitations in shifting to alternative fuel technologies for heavy-duty vehicles.
- ✓ The recommendations of the EPCA as a balanced approach.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “Air pollution directly affects the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to live in a pollutionfree environment.”
- “The NGT while protecting/safeguarding the above fundamental right of the people of Delhi NCR cannot allow infringement of the same fundamental right of the citizens living outside Delhi NCR.”
- “With ever-advancing technology, constant endeavour to explore the availability of other fuel resources that could be used for heavy-duty vehicles should always continue.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, and both judges were in agreement.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment as a key consideration in environmental matters.
- ✓ The Court has directed the Union of India to formulate a policy for phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS-VI vehicles.
- ✓ The Court has directed the appellant to formulate a plan for optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi to reduce the burden on the Tughlakabad facility.
- ✓ The Court has directed the appellant to implement the recommendations made by KPMG for improving parking management at the ICD.
- ✓ The Court will monitor the implementation of the directions given in the judgment.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The Union of India shall formulate a policy of phasing out heavy-duty diesel vehicles and replacing them with BS-VI vehicles within six months.
- The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways shall be informed of the order.
- The process of exploring better fuel sources, including CNG/Hybrid/Electric, for heavy-duty vehicles shall continue.
- The appellant shall formulate a plan for optimal utilization of ICDs around Delhi within six months.
- The appellant shall coordinate with official agencies to set up central laboratories near ICDs around Delhi NCR.
- The appellant shall implement the recommendations made by KPMG for improving parking management at the ICD within six months.
- The case will be listed on 31st July 2024 for reporting compliance.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to a pollution-free environment, as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, mandates the phasing out of polluting vehicles and the adoption of cleaner alternatives. This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to environmental protection and sets a precedent for addressing pollution caused by industrial activities. There is no significant change in the previous positions of law, but this case emphasizes the implementation of existing laws and policies for environmental protection.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Ajay Khera & Ors. is a significant step towards addressing air pollution caused by Inland Container Depots. By directing the phasing out of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and promoting the use of cleaner alternatives, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of the fundamental right to a pollution-free environment. The judgment also emphasizes the need for optimal utilization of resources and infrastructure to minimize environmental impact. The Court will monitor the implementation of these directions, ensuring accountability and progress in the fight against air pollution.