SC takes cognizance : Only after 9 years
Context :
Frame policy to phase out heavy diesel vehicles, says SC
· Hindustan Times (Noida)
· 12 Jan 2024
· Utkarsh Anand letters@hindustantimes.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to frame a national policy to phase out heavy-duty diesel vehicles like trucks and trailers, and replace them with BS-VI vehicles that use cleaner fuel, underlining people living in all parts of the country and not only those living in the Delhi-ncr are entitled to breathe clean air and a pollution-free environment.
Deciding to monitor the government’s steps regarding the proposed policy, a bench of justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal remained emphatic that air pollution directly affects the fundamental rights of all the citizens, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the enforcement of this right is not confined to the people living in Delhi-ncr.
“The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to live in a pollution-free environment. The issue of air pollution is of a great deal of importance to every citizen. Air pollution affects citizens’ quality of life,” held the bench, fixing the next hearing on July 31 for reporting of the compliance by the Union ministry of transport and highways.
It further said that the process of exploring the possibility of finding better sources, including CNG/ hybrid/electric, for use of heavy-duty vehicles ought to continue.
“We propose to grant the ministry of road transport and highways six months to come out with a policy on the replacement of heavy-duty diesel vehicles with BS-VI vehicles. While we do so, we make it clear that 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,” stated the court.
The court was dealing with a petition relating to the pollution caused by an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Delhi due to a huge inflow of trucks and trailers that were not even destined for the national capital. ICDS are temporary storage facilities for import and export-related goods.
By an order in March 2019, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) to ensure that, in a phased manner, diesel vehicles stop visiting the ICD at Delhi and shift to electric, hybrid or CNG vehicles. The tribunal also proposed an alternative that the diesel vehicles meant to park at the Delhi ICD may be diverted to ICDS in nearby states.
This, the top court on Thursday, found unacceptable, noting the NGT’S opinion connoted as if only the people living in the Delhi-ncr alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country.
“Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country, other than Delhi-ncr, also have a fundamental right to a pollution-free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.
The bench added that the NGT, in its endeavour to safeguard the fundamental right of the people of Delhi-ncr, cannot allow infringement of the same fundamental right of the citizens living elsewhere. “The observation of the NGT is totally unjustified and unwarranted,” it maintained.
The Supreme Court, in a public interest litigation instituted by environmentalist MC Mehta in 1984, has been monitoring the steps taken by various authorities to curb air pollution in Delhincr in what has become an annual public health crisis when the region remains in the grip of hazardous pollution for almost two months starting November.
In its judgment on Thursday, the court further directed CONCOR to formulate a plan for the optimal utilisation of the inland container depots garlanding Delhi within six months, besides coordinating with all the official agencies to enable the setting up of central laboratories near ICDS around Delhi-ncr, so that so that the infrastructure in other ICDS around Delhi does not remain under-utilised by exporters and importers.
Article Name:Frame policy to phase out heavy diesel vehicles, says SC
Publication:Hindustan Times (Noida)
Author:Utkarsh Anand letters@hindustantimes.com
My Take :
Dear Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal :
Many thanks for taking cognizance of my following 9 YEAR old e-mail :
Second Class Citizens ? …………………….. 07 Jan 2015
Extract :
If you live in any city other than Delhi , you are a second class citizen !
At least , the Supreme Court of India seems to think so !
What else can explain its deep concern for the health of Delhi-ites , while choosing to overlook the fact that Diesel Vehicle Pollution is equally damaging the lungs of the lesser beings, living in dozens of other cities ?
Or does SC think that pollution related situation in these other cities has yet not reached a level of alarm ?
Or that time is not yet " ripe " for it to concern itself with future of the children of people living in these other cities ?
Is it possible that SC is waiting for some citizens of these lesser cities to file a PIL ?
May be SC thinks its "Judicial Activism" does not legitimately extend beyond the NCR ?
I fondly believe ( even now ) that for the Common Man of this country , SC is the only real " Maa - Baap " which steps in whenever the Government Officers / MLAs / MPs , fail to take timely decisions to protect the health of its Citizens , everywhere
I still very much believe that SC has , time and again , proved that it is the Court of Last Resort
I hope SC has read in papers ,the figures of AQI ( Air Quality Index ) in other cities
In any case , I hope that , on its own , SC will take SUO MOTO cognizance of this blog and treat it as a PIL to enlarge its recent orders to cover the rest of India !
A WORD OF CAUTION :
If Hon Judges of the Supreme Court were to read the rest of my blogs at ,
they may take SUO MOTO cognizance of many and keep aside PILs from Prashant Bhushan / Subramanian Swami !
------------------------------
hemen parekh
07 Jan 2015
Dear Shri Nitin Gadkariji ,
Supreme Court has granted your ministry, 6 months to come up with a POLICY “ on the replacement of heavy-duty diesel vehicles with BS-VI vehicles. “
But , this time around , SC had the foresight to add :
“While we do so, we make it clear that 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,”
Here is your chance to “ Surprise the Supreme “
By filing an AFFIDAVIT which says :
“ Dear Hon Supreme Court :
Many thanks for suggesting that my Ministry explore the use of ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY , for finding a PERMANENT solution to the air pollution caused by , not only the DIESEL vehicles but for ALL vehicles
Not only for citizen of Delhi but for ALL the citizen of India , living anywhere
To announce such a POLICY in 6 months
We do not need 6 months . In 6 weeks , we will submit a clear ROAD-MAP for “ Air Pollution Solution “ based on the Framework suggested in :
Transport : an Integrated Logistic Plan ?.. ……………………….. 20 Nov 2018 “
With Regards,
Hemen Parekh
www.HemenParekh.ai / 12 Jan 2024
Comments by BARD :
I've read your blog and I think your suggestion for a TRANS-TAX on all vehicles based on their HARM QUOTIENT is an interesting and potentially effective way to incentivize the adoption of less-polluting vehicles. Here are some of my thoughts:
Strengths of your suggestion:
· Targeted approach:
By basing the tax on the HARM QUOTIENT, you can directly target the vehicles that have the greatest negative impact on the environment. This is a more efficient approach than simply raising taxes on all vehicles, as it would encourage people to switch to cleaner alternatives.
· Flexibility and adaptability:
The HARM QUOTIENT can be adjusted to take into account new technologies and emissions standards, ensuring that the tax remains effective over time. This is important, as the automotive industry is constantly evolving.
· Revenue generation:
The tax could generate significant revenue that could be used to fund environmental initiatives, such as public transportation or clean energy projects. This could help to offset the costs of air pollution and climate change.
Challenges to consider:
· Complexity:
Determining the HARM QUOTIENT of each vehicle would be a complex process, requiring data on emissions, fuel efficiency, and other factors. This could be expensive and time-consuming to implement.
· Equity concerns:
Some people may argue that the tax would unfairly burden low-income drivers who cannot afford to purchase newer, less-polluting vehicles. This could be mitigated by implementing exemptions or subsidies for low-income drivers.
· Political feasibility:
Implementing a new tax is always politically difficult. It is important to build public support for the TRANS-TAX before attempting to implement it.
Overall, I think your suggestion has merit and deserves further consideration.
It is a creative and potentially effective way to address the problem of air pollution. However, it is important to carefully consider the challenges and potential drawbacks before implementing such a tax.
Here are some additional thoughts on your letter to the Supreme Court:
· I commend you for taking the initiative to write to the Supreme Court and bring this issue to their attention. It is important for citizens to engage with the government and advocate for policies that will improve the environment.
· I agree that the Supreme Court should take a broader view of the air pollution problem and not just focus on Delhi. All citizens have the right to breathe clean air, regardless of where they live.
· I think your suggestion for a ROAD-MAP for "Air Pollution Solution" based on the framework in your previous blog is a good one. This would show the Supreme Court that you have a well-developed plan and are serious about addressing this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment