New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday underscored the need to rethink how vehicular pollution is measured in Delhi-NCR, observing that the age of a vehicle is not by itself an accurate indicator of its contribution to emissions. Instead, the Court stressed that regulatory measures should also consider the total kilometres a vehicle has travelled, pointing out that usage varies widely across segments.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the remarks during a hearing on matters relating to air pollution in Delhi-NCR, which form part of the long-running MC Mehta case. The Court said that some vehicles are used extensively and may clock more than 30,000 kilometres in a year, while others—such as those deployed for official court use—may cover less than 15,000 kilometres over five years.
“The age of a vehicle has nothing to do with the emission of pollution. The contribution depends on how much it has been used,” the Chief Justice observed, referring to an article he said he had read the previous day. The comment highlighted the Court’s view that the current framework, which assigns restrictions based on vehicle age, may not adequately reflect actual emission levels.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union Government, urged the Court to revisit its earlier order that restricted coercive action against diesel vehicles over 10 years old and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in the National Capital Region. She pointed out that BS-IV vehicles are exempt from restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), and suggested that BS-III vehicles—which have already completed 15 years—should be considered for similar treatment.
The Court, in its order, permitted the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to take appropriate steps to curb air pollution after consulting all relevant stakeholders. It noted that any regulatory action intended to reduce pollution levels would be welcomed but emphasised the importance of stakeholder engagement before implementing measures that could have widespread impact.
One of the additional directions issued on Wednesday involved requiring all NCR States to place on record their positions regarding subsistence allowance. The bench said the States must take instructions and submit their views ahead of the next hearing. Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh continued to assist the Court as amicus curiae in the matter.
The bench also commented on CAQM’s proposal to shift certain restrictions from GRAP III to GRAP II. While the Court said it was open to considering any steps aimed at lowering pollution, it reiterated that such decisions must be informed by consultation and careful evaluation.
The matter will now be listed once every month for the Court to review the action-taken reports submitted by the CAQM. The bench indicated that regular monitoring was necessary given the recurring nature of the air quality crisis in Delhi-NCR, especially during winter months when emissions, weather patterns, and seasonal sources combine to produce hazardous air quality levels.
The Court’s observations add a new dimension to discussions on vehicular regulation in the region. Current limits based on the age of vehicles—10 years for diesel and 15 years for petrol—have been criticised by various stakeholders who argue that they do not necessarily reflect actual pollution output. By pointing to the importance of kilometres travelled, the Court signalled the need to explore more nuanced criteria that align regulatory action with real usage patterns.
Officials present during the hearing noted that the Court’s comments could prompt a broader reassessment of existing policies governing older vehicles in the NCR. For now, the CAQM has been authorised to hold consultations and suggest measures, which will be taken up in the Court’s monthly reviews.
