M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 01-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 1998 
B 
(DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ,. B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Environmental law-Vehicular pollution-National Capital Region and 
National Capital Territory of Delhi-Proper management and control of 
traffic-Safeguards necessary for pub/ ic safety-Executive function to control 
C vehicular pollution and protect environment-Executive inaction-Directions 
given by Supreme Court from time to time-Implementation of-Solicitor 
General to file a status report detailing the action taken with regard to 
various directions issued by this Court earlier-Union of India to suitably 
publicised in the print as well as electronic media so that everybody is made 
D aware of the directions-State's obligation to ensure that directions given 
are complied with-Directions relating to vehicular pollution and traffic 
conditions to he carried out by all concerned notwithstanding any order or 
direction given by any authority, Court or Tribunal. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 
E ofl985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Santosh N. Hegde, Solicitor General, H.N. Salve, (AC), P.P. Malhotra, 
F Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, U.U. Lalit, (A.C.), M.C. Mehta-in-Person 
(NP), S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Anubha 
Jain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, Anmeshwar 
Gupta, Prashant Bhushan, Sanjeev Kapoor, Videh Upadhyay and Vijay Panjwani. 
V.B. Saharya, Anil Kumar Mittal, in-person, Anil Sood, in-person, Sushi! 
G Kumar Jain, Pradeep Aggarwal, A.P. Dhamija, Umesh Bohare, A. Mishra, L.P. 
Singh, Atul Sharma, M.A. Chinnaswamy, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, Anis Ahmad 
Khan, Jayant Nath, Rakesh Sharma, R. Sasiprabi1u, R.K. Maheshwari, Ashok 
Mathur, Ranjit Kumar, Ejaz Maqbool, Hardeep Singh Anand, S.K. Srivastava, 
L.K. Pandey, S.B. Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh, Mahabir Singh, Dinesh 
K. Garg, R.P. Gupta, Ms Binu Tamta, R.C. Verma, Sri Narain, Vineet Kumar, 
fl 
264 
-· 
.-
' 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
265 
P.K. Bakshi, Prem Malhotra, Ms. Rani Chhabra and N.D. Garg for the appearing A 
parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This writ petition was filed in 1985. More than a decade has gone by. 
Various aspects for improvement of environment were highlighted in the B 
petition including the one relating to proper management and control of traffic 
in the National Capital Region and the National Capital Territory of Delhi with 
a view to ensure adequate safeguards necessary for public safety. Besides 
this, vehicular pollution was also highlighted and the need for remedial steps 
convassed to take care of the chaotic traffic conditions which have given rise C 
to road accidents resulting in death and bodily injury to the citizens. To 
control vehicular pollution and protect environment is primarily the function 
of the executive. It is their obligation to devise suitable measures and provide 
machinery for rigid enforcement of such measures as are necessary to curb 
the menace of chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular pollution with a view 
to ensure the welfare of general public. The inaction on the part of the D 
executive, however, impelled this Court to issue certain directions from time 
to time in this writ petition, but precious little appears to have been done 
despite those directions. Before we consider the question of holding somebody 
responsible and accountable, we consider it appropriate to repeat some of the 
directions which had been issued on November 20, 1997 and on subsequent 
dates and direct their strict compliance. We direct: 
E 
"(a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles, and light goods 
vehicles being four wheelers would be permitted to operate on the 
roads of the NCR and NCT, Delhi, unless they are fitted with suitable 
speed control devices to ensure that they do not exceed the speed F 
limit of 40 KMPH. This will not apply to transport vehicles operating 
on Inter-State permits and national goods permits. Such exempted 
vehicles would, however, be confined to such routes and such timings 
during day and night as the police/transport, authorities may publish. 
It is made clear that no vehicle would be permitted on roads ' other 
than the aforementioned exempted roads or during the times other G 
than aforesaid time without a speed control device. • 
(b) In our view the scheme of the Act necessarily implies an obligation 
to use the vehicle in a ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.