Supreme Court restricts sale of BS-IV vehicles post 31st March 2020: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (24 October 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2018
Citation: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Deepak Gupta, J. (authored the judgment).

Can the pursuit of economic interests justify the continued sale of vehicles that contribute to hazardous air pollution? The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark judgment, grapples with this critical question, addressing the conflict between environmental protection and the automobile industry’s desire to sell existing stocks of BS-IV compliant vehicles. The core issue revolves around whether to allow the sale of BS-IV vehicles after the deadline for transitioning to the cleaner BS-VI emission standards. The Court, in this case, had to balance the need for a cleaner environment with the practical difficulties faced by automobile manufacturers.

Case Background

The case stems from a long-standing effort to reduce vehicular pollution in India. The government, based on the Mashelkar Committee’s recommendations in 2001, introduced Bharat Stage (BS) emission norms. BS-IV norms were first implemented in major cities starting April 1, 2005, and gradually extended to the entire country by April 1, 2017. Two and three-wheelers were initially subject to BS-III norms from April 1, 2010, and later BS-IV norms by April 1, 2017. The transition to BS-VI norms was set for April 1, 2020. Manufacturers sought permission to sell existing BS-IV stock after the deadline, citing logistical challenges.

Timeline

Arguments

The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) argued for an extension to sell BS-IV vehicles manufactured before April 1, 2020, citing the notification dated 20.02.2018, which allowed registration of BS-IV vehicles until June 30, 2020, and September 30, 2020, for certain commercial vehicles. They contended that a three-month window was necessary to dispose of existing stock. SIAM also argued that in Europe, manufacturers get about a year to transition to higher fuel standards. They highlighted the challenges in switching to BS-VI production overnight and the need for six to nine months to adjust assembly lines. SIAM also pointed out that the timeline for BS-VI fuel introduction was advanced multiple times, creating difficulties for manufacturers.

The Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, passionately argued against any sale of non-BS-VI compliant vehicles after April 1, 2020, citing the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report on the severe health impacts of air pollution. The Amicus also highlighted the fact that one in three children in Delhi suffer from respiratory problems, which is almost twice as high as compared to the city of Kolkata or rural areas. They emphasized that air pollution is a significant health hazard, and any leniency in implementing BS-VI norms would have severe consequences. The Amicus argued that manufacturers are already exporting BS-VI compliant vehicles to other countries and have the technology to manufacture BS-VI compliant vehicles in India.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) compliant vehicles should be permitted to be sold in India after 31.03.2020.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, held that the health of citizens takes precedence over the economic interests of automobile manufacturers. The Court noted that the manufacturers were capable of producing BS-VI compliant vehicles and were already doing so for export markets. The Court also noted that the government had spent significant amounts of money to make BS-VI fuel available throughout the country. The Court found that the extension of time for registration of BS-IV vehicles as provided in sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [AIR 1990 SC 630]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a decent environment.
• Bhavani River – Sakthi Sugars Ltd., In re [(1998) 2 SCC 601]: The Court reiterated that the right to life includes the right to a clean environment.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1998) 6 SCC 60, (1998) 6 SCC 63, (1999) 6 SCC 12, (2002) 10 SCC 191, 2017 SCC Online SC 394]: The Court cited these cases to demonstrate its consistent efforts to ensure a clean environment and reduce pollution.
• N.D. Jayal v. Union of India [(2004) 9 SCC 362]: The Court used this case to highlight that the right to a clean environment is a fundamental right.
• State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. [(2003) 7 SCC 389]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of a healthy environment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect public health and ensure a cleaner environment, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the technology for BS-VI compliant vehicles was already available and that the government had invested heavily in making BS-VI fuel available. The Court highlighted the severe health impacts of air pollution, particularly on children, and emphasized that the health of citizens must take precedence over the economic interests of the automobile industry. The Court also noted that some manufacturers were willing to comply with the deadline and were already producing BS-VI compliant vehicles.

Fact:Law Ratio Explanation: The ratio of fact to law is 30:70. This means that 30% of the Court’s consideration was based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the availability of BS-VI technology and the government’s investment in BS-VI fuel. The remaining 70% of the Court’s consideration was based on legal considerations, primarily the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to protect public health. This indicates that the Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal framework and the constitutional mandate to protect the environment and the health of citizens.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court prioritized public health over the economic interests of automobile manufacturers.
• The Court read down sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to prohibit the sale and registration of BS-IV vehicles after 31.03.2020.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of a clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court highlighted that the technology for BS-VI compliant vehicles was already available and that the government had invested heavily in making BS-VI fuel available.
• This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving environmental protection and industrial interests.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to a clean environment, as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, takes precedence over the economic interests of industries. This judgment reinforces the Court’s previous stance on environmental protection and establishes a clear precedent against allowing the sale of polluting vehicles when cleaner alternatives are available. The Court also emphasized that when the health of millions of citizens is involved, notifications relating to commercial activities ought not to be interpreted in a literal manner but should be given a purposive interpretation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring a cleaner environment and protecting public health. By prohibiting the sale and registration of BS-IV vehicles after March 31, 2020, the Court has sent a strong message that environmental concerns must take precedence over economic interests. This decision is likely to have a lasting impact on environmental law and the automobile industry in India.