Holding

The Court declined to grant a blanket extension of the CNG conversion deadline, but permitted specific, time‑bound relaxations for certain categories of buses, and directed the Bhure Lal Committee to determine the status of low‑sulphur diesel as a clean fuel.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, examined the failure of the Delhi government and private bus operators to meet its earlier order (28 July 1998) that the entire city bus fleet be converted to CNG by 31 March 2001 and that no bus older than eight years operate on diesel after 1 April 2000. Applications seeking a blanket extension of the deadline were rejected, with the Court emphasizing that such extensions would reward administrative and private inaction and could amount to contempt. However, to mitigate hardship to commuters and schoolchildren, the Court granted limited relaxations allowing certain schools, the Delhi Transport Corporation, contract‑carriage operators, tourist‑permit buses, and other commercial vehicles to continue using existing non‑CNG buses not older than eight years until 30 September 2001, subject to filing affidavits and undertaking to replace them with CNG vehicles. The Court also directed the Bhure Lal Committee to examine whether low‑sulphur diesel can be classified as a "clean fuel" and to report within a month. The order reaffirmed that directions issued under Article 21 of the Constitution override any statutory provisions that conflict with the right to health.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting a blanket extension of the CNG conversion deadline for Delhi's city bus fleet.
Whether low‑sulphur diesel qualifies as a "clean fuel" for the purpose of environmental protection.
Whether the Supreme Court's directions under Article 21 override the emission norms prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether private bus operators are bound by the Court's order in rem despite not being parties to the original writ petition.

Legislation cited

Subjects

vehicular pollutionCNG conversionenvironmental lawArticle 21clean fuellow sulphur dieselcontempt of courtpublic interest litigationtransport policyDelhi

Judgment

A M.C.MEITTA )... '
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 26, 2001

B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]

Environmental law-Vechicular Pollution-Order dn!ed 28th July 1998
,.
passed by Supreme Court-Directions issued under order-Entire city bus
fleet should be steadily converted to a single fuel mode of CNG by 31.3.2001-
c No eight year old buses should ply except on CNG or other clean fuel after
[st April 2000-Neither Government nor bus operators took diligent steps to
comply with Court's order-Such inaction deprecated-Applications filed for
extension of time-Held a blanket extention of time cannot be given-Order
passed by Court should not'be treated lightly-Compliance of order should be
in letter and spirit-However, in public interest and with a view to mitigate
D sufferings of commuter public and school children some relaxations and
exemptions given.

Environmental law-Low sulphur diesel-Whether can be regarded as
'clean fuel'-Direction to Bhure lal Committee to examine this question-
E Parties should submit their representation ta committee-Committee to submit
its report within one month to Supreme Court. " '
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 of
1985.

F (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, (A.C.), R.N. Trivedi, K.N. Rawal, Ad-
.....
ditional Solicitor Generals, M.L. Verma, Raju Ramachandran, F.S. Nariman,
T.R. Andhyrujina, GopaJ Subramanium, Shanti Bhushan, Salman Khurshid,
V.R. Reddy, K.K. VenugopaJ, S. BaJakrishnan, U.U. LaJit, (A.C.), Ms. Aprajita
G Singh, Nikhil Sakhardande, (M.C. Mehta)-in-person, Ms. A. Subhashini, H.S.
Anand, Percy Gandhi, RN. Karanjawala, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Julie
Buragohain, Manik Karanjawala, L.K. Pandey, Rajiv Sharma, GopaJ Jain, Ms.
Ruby Singh Ahuja, Sandeep Puri, Rajesh Kumar, A. Samad, Rakesh Kumar, •
Vinod Kumar, V.B. Saharya, Sri Narain, Ms. Anjali, Er. Anil Kumar Mittal,
H S. Wasim, A. Qadri, A.D.N. Rao, Bipul Kumar, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Suvira LaJ,
698
MjC. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 699
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Anil Katiyar, A.D.N. Rao, C. Radhakrishna, B. V. A
Bairam Das, Prashant Bhushan, Sanjeev Kapoor, Sanjay Pathak, Vijay Panjwani,
Sheil Sethi, R.C. Verma, Vivek Vishnoi, Ms. Kiran Kapoor, Rakesh K.
Khanna, Ms. Pallavi Choudhary, Surya Kant, Sushi! Dutta Salwan, Piyush
Sharma, Pramod Dayal, Sunil Gupta, Jatin Zaveri, Harish J. Jhaveri, HX.
Puri, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms.
B
Meenaxi, M.S. Bakshi, Subrarnonium Prasad, S.N. Jha, Ms. Astha Tyagi, P.K.
Sharma, Divyang K. Chhaya, Abhijat P. Medh, Avimukt Par, Ms. Kum Kum
Sen, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Ms. Shyel Trehan, Raj Shekhar Rao, R.K. Maheshwari
and Anil Srivastava for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : c
With a view to check rapid deterioration of air quality in Delhi, which
was becoming a health hazard besides being an environmental enemy certain
directions have been issued by this Court from time to time in the main Writ
Petition.
D
On 28th July, 1998, some further directions were issued fixing a time
schedule after taking note of the recommendations made by the Bhure Lal
Committee. One of the important directions [direction (g)] issued on that date
was to the effect that the entire 'city bus fleet was to be steadily converted
to a single fuel mode of CNG by 31.3.2001'. Another direction [direction E
(f)] was to the effect that 'no eight year old buses were to ply except on CNG
or other clean fuel after !st April, 2000'.

Unfortunately, neither the Governmental authorities nor private bus
operators acted seriously or diligently in taking steps for the purposes of
complying with the aforesaid directions and this was inspite of the fact that F
we had issued a strong caution to all concerned in our order dated 28th July,
1998 that failure to comply with the aforesaid directions could render the
concerned punishable for committing Contempt of Court.

A number of applications have now been filed and requests made at
G
the bar seeking extension of deadline to convert the entire city bus fleet to
single fuel mode of CNG beyond 31st March, 2001. The Court has, on each
date of bearing, been making it abundantly clear that the question of allowing
buses, other than those which run on CNG to ply after 31st March, 2001 did
not arise. The Court made it clear to the administration as also to all other
concerned that they had failed to show sufficient earnestness for implement- H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A ing the order dated 28th July, 1998 in the matter of conversion of the
commercial vehicles operating in Delhi into CNG fuel mode, ignoring interest
of health of citizens and the Court cold not overlook their lapses. The
extensions have now been sought finding that the deadline of 31st March,
2001 was fast approaching.

B In the applications filed for extension of time, difficulties being faced
by the transporters because of the non-availability of CNG conversion kits
free from all defects; conversion of CNG at reasonable prices; lack of
stabilisation of CNG technology in respect of public transport as also the non-
availability of CNG and CNG cylinders have been pointed out. There is
c however, no satisfactory explanation offered either by the administration or
the private transporters as to why they were sleeping over all this time and
did not point out the difficulties earlier.

We are conscious of the fact that due to lack of effective action taken
by the private but operators as also the governmental authorities, with effect
D from 1.4.2001 inconvenience is likely to be caused to the commuting public
including the school children who use the city buses, but, this "urban chaos",
(to use the expression used by the Administration) which may arise as a result
of not extending the deadline fixed by this Court, however, is a creation of
the administration and the private operators and they have to thank them-
E selves for it. They are accountable to the commuting public for creating this
situation. The administration does admit its 'lapses' but the learned Additional
Solicitor General has time and again submitted that for their lapses, "let the
commuting public not suffer". It appears to be an argument of despair.

Out of a total fleet of 12,000 - 14,000 buses which operate locally in
F Delhi, the OTC has a fleet of about 2,000 buses. About 6,000 buses operate
on contract carriage system. Approximately 6,200 buses run on Stage Car-
riage Permit. These stage carriage buses operate locally in Delhi, either under
the OTC KM. Scheme or under the permit scheme.

On behalf of the Stage Carriage Permit transport operators, Mr. K.K.
G Venugopal, learned senior counsel, submitted that all their existing buses are
meeting emission norms for diesel vehicles as prescribed under the Motor
Vehicles Act and, therefore, they cannot be denied their right to ply their
buses 'even if they do not conform to the directions issued by this Court on
28th JuJy, 1998' since they were not heard before fixing the time schedule
H on 28th July, 1998 (as they were not parties to the writ petition). In other
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 701
words what is sought to be challenged on behalf of these operators is the A
correctness of the order passed on 28th July, 1998 at this belated stage. It
is not possible to accept that all these years, these private operators were
"unaware" of the directions issued by this Court on 28th July, 1998. We are
not impressed with the argument of Mr. Venugopal. The directions issued by
us were not in any adversarial litigation. Besides our order was, and it was
B
conceded by Mr. Venugopal, as order in rem and not an order in personam.
All private operators, who operate their buses in Delhi are bound by these
orders, which were made to safeguard the health of the citizens, being a facet
or Article 21 and had been publicised from time to time both in the electronic
as well as print media. That apart, the Bhure Lal Committee had been set up
under the Environment Protection Act and it was directed by this Court that c
the Committee could give directions towards effective implementation of the
safeguards of Environment Protection Act, more particularly in matters aimed
at preventing air-pollution. Directions issued by the Bhure Lal Committee
have, thus, legal sanctions and when accepted and incorporated by this Court
become a part of its order, binding on all parties. Besides, directions given D
for safeguarding health of the people, a right provided and protected by
Article 21 of the Constitution. would override provisions of every statute
including the Motor Vehicles Act, if they militate against the constitutional
mandate of Article 21. We must, however, hasten to add that norms fixed
under Motor Vehicles Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the
requirements of Environment Protection Act. If the owners of the Stage E
C=iage buses chose to ignore the directions issued by this Court on 28th
July, 1998, they did so at their own peril. We wish to re-emphasise that those
of the private bus operators, who have chosen not to comply with the Court's
orders and have not taken any steps for conversion of the vehicles to the CNG
mode are not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. They must thank F
themselves for the situation in which they find themselves.

The DTC and some other private operators, though belatedly, have now
t3ken steps and placed orders for CNG buses. Some of the schools, which
own their own buses, have placed orders for CNG buses or conversion of
their existing buses to CNG mode. Most of the schools are hiring buses from G
the DTC and other private operators. Some other private operators have also
taken steps to convert their buses to CNG mode either by placing orders for
new CNG buses or by conversion to CNG mode.

In the affidavit filed by Mr. V.K. Bhatia on 22nd March, 2001 on behalf H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of the OTC, it has been stated that currently 860 buses, both CNG and diesel,
are being plied on school duties. It is further stated in the affidavit that these
buses, apart from performing school duties in the morning and in the evening,
are also, deployed on the general route duties from the nearby depots or
terminals. It is also stated in the affidavit that in addition to 860 buses on
school duties, 160 spare buses are kept ready for deployment in case of
B
replacement if the need arises. The affidavit discloses that orders have been
placed by OTC for 1880 CNG buses and that order for another 120 buses
is likely to be given shortly.

In so far as contract carriage permit holders are concerned, we are
C informed that they have about 6000 buses in operation. According to their
learned counsel, out of the said number of buses, 3100 buses run as school
buses within Dclni under contract with different schools. About 1400 buses
run as contract carriage to and from Delhi and within Delhi Approximately
1000 buses have all h1dia tourist permits and they ply inter-State. Approxi-
mately, 500 buses are 27 sealers and air-conditioned, which are solely used
D for the benefits of tourists to visit tourist spots in and around Delhi. On their
behalf their learned counsel has stated that these contract carriage permits
holders have already placed orders for about 1000 new CNG buses.

After hearing learned counsel for. the parties seeking extension of the
March 31, 2001 deadline, we are of the opinion that a blanket extension of
E
deadline cannot be given as that would amount to putting premium on the
lapses and inaction of the administration and the private transport operators.
Orders of this Court cannot be treated lightly. They are me&nt to be complied
with in letter and in spirit. We, therefore, categorically decline to give any
blanket extension of our directions (g) and (f) as contained in the order dated
F 28th July, 1998. However, in public interest and with a view to mitigate the
sufferings of the commuter public in general and the school children, in
particular, we make the following relaxations or exemptions :

l. Those schools which have as on 31st March, 2001 placed firm orders
for replacement or conversion of the school buses owned by them to CNG
G
mode, but, who have not so far obtained such buses running on CNG mode,
are permitted to run their existing buses, equal to the number of buses for
which conversion orders have been placed, provided such buses are uot more
than eight year old, upto 30th September, 200 I Those schools who are
entitled to and wish to avail of this concession, shall before 31.3.2001 file
·tt affidavits in this Court giving details of the buses owned by them and the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 703
particulars of the orders placed by them for uew CNG buses or for conversion A
.. of the existing buses to CNG mode. They will keep on replacing the existing
buses with CNG buses as and when made available during this period.

2. OTC has placed orders for 1880 buses. Some of the CNG buses have
already been received by them and are on their fleet. We permit the OTC to
run 1880 existing buses including the existing CNG buses which are not more B
than eight year old till 30th September, 2001. This, however, is subject to the
condition that out of these 1880 buses, a full compliment of buses for the
schools, namely 860 buses plus the requisite spare buses shall be deployed
for school duty. As and when new CNG buses are received by OTC, the
existing buses shall be replaced. c
3. It is represented on behalf of contract carriage operators of inter-
State and tourist buses that the applicants were under the bona fide impression
that the expression "city bus fleet" in direction (g) of the order dated 28th
July, 1998 was not meant to take within its ambit buses owned by such tour
operators as they run mostly on inter-State routes as luxury coaches. Even D
if that be so, their case would certainly be covered by condition (t) of the
order dated 28th July, 1998, which provided that no eight year old buses were
to ply except on CNG or other clean fuel after !st April, 2001. Even if, it
was bona fide believed that these buses were not to be converted to single
fuel mode of CNG, they could not in any case ply except on CNG or other
E
clean fuel, such buses which were not more than 8 years old. Diesel,
especially of the type available in India, is not regarded as a clean fuel
whereas unleaded petrol with low Benzene content is considered as clean fuel.
These bus operators definitely need to comply with the directions given by
us on 28th July, 1998 and it is for them to switch over to CNG or other clean
fuel. F

4. Out of the 6000 contract carriage buses, about 3100 also ply as
school buses. We direct that owners of such contract carriage buses, who have
already taken steps for replacement of their buses by CNG buses or conver-
sion to CNG mode, shall file affidavits giving particulars of the existing buses
G
and details of the orders placed for replacement or conversion to CNG mode
before 31st of March, 2001. They shall be permitted to ply their existing
buses, equal to the number of existing buses for which steps have been taken
to convert or replace to CNG mode, provided the existing buses are not
more than 8 years old, Sucli buses shall be permitted to ply till 30th
September, 200 I. H
~
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 2 S.C.R.
A 5. If any other bus operators, including stage carriage permit holders,
have placed or shall place by 31st March, 2001 firm orders for CNG buses
or for conversion to CNG mode, they shall also be permitted to operate equal
number of their existing buses, which are not more than eight year old till
30th September, 2001, under the control and direction of the transport
department subject to their filing undertakings in this Court by way of
B
affidavits giving details of the bnses owned by them, orders placed for
conversion/new CNG buses by 31st March, 2001.

6. Owners of other commercial vehicles, including autos, who have
placed firm orders for new CNG '!ehicles or for conversion to CNG mode
c shall also give details on affidavits by 31st March, 2001 about their existing
vehicles, as also details of the orders placed by them for new CNG vehicles
or for conversion to CNG mode. On these affidavits being filed, they
shall also be permitted to operate an equal number of existing commercial
vehicles, provided the vehicles are not more than eight year old, till 3Cth
September, 200 I.
D
7. We are of the view that tourists should not be put to avoidable
inconvenience. After taking note of the fact that the number of buses owned
by operators having All India Tourist Permit is limited, we permit the
operators of All India Tourist Permits to ply their existing buses (both air-
E conditioned and others), which are not eight year old, till 30th September,
2001. They shall, however, give details of such buses and also file an
undertaking before 31.3.2001, agreeing to replace their 'fleet to ply either on
CNG or other clean fuel by 30th September, 2001.

8. We direct that after !st April, 2001, no commercial vehicle will
F be registered in Delhi which does not conform to the order dated 28th July,
1998.

9. The transport department shall take steps to ensure that there is no
misuse or abuse of the relaxations given by us above.
G
10. We, reiterate that except for the relaxation given above, no other
commercial vehicles shall ply in Delhi unless converted to single fuel mode
of CNG with effect from !st April, 2001.

During the course of arguments, it was contended before us that low
H sulphur diesel should be regarded as a clean fuel and buses be permitted to
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. 705

run on that. It was submitted that in some other countries ultra low sulphur A
diesel which has sulphur content of not more 0.001 per cent is now available.
We direct the Bhure Lal Committee to examine this question and permit the
parties to submit their written representations to the Committee in that behalf.
The Committee may submit a report to this Court in that behalf as also
indicate as to which fuel can be regarded as "clean fuel", which does not
B
cause pollution or is otherwise injurious to health. Let the report be submitted
within one month.

T.N.A. Matter is still pending.