The Supreme Court on Thursday formally disposed of the landmark 1985 public interest litigation filed by environmental activist MC Mehta that had led to nearly four decades of sustained judicial oversight of Delhi’s pollution control — from converting the city’s bus fleet to compressed natural gas to imposing restrictions on firecrackers and phasing out old commercial vehicles.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalia Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi closed the writ petition No. 13029/1985, noting that the proceedings had involved continuous injunctions for nearly 40 years, resulting in numerous directions on vehicular pollution, industrial emissions, waste management and other environmental issues.
The bench certainly directed the registry to register new suo motu proceedings under the title “Air Pollution Cases in the National Capital Region”, ensuring the Court’s continued oversight of pollution control measures in the National Capital Region under a new set of hearings. However, the procedural change culminates in a case that set a model for judicial intervention in environmental cases in India, with the court ordering the strictest restrictions.
Over four decades, a series of requests accompanying the petition have reshaped the environmental governance of the nation’s capital in particular. Under this case, the Supreme Court in 1998 accepted the recommendations of the Puri Lal Committee and ordered conversion of the capital’s entire bus fleet to CNG – a trend that transformed public transport in Delhi and became a global reference point for court-led transitions to clean fuel.
The case also led to the phasing out of the use of leaded petrol in India’s metros in 1994, the setting up of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Board in 1998, and the imposition of eco-compensation duty on commercial vehicles entering Delhi in 2015. Last year, the court was ruling on fireworks restrictions – particularly its directive to use green fireworks – in the National Capital Region under the same case number.
Read also: SC accepts CAQM’s proposal to raise ECC standard, commercial vehicles to pay more to enter Delhi
On 23 February, the Court expressed concern that the famous political impeachment cases from the 1980s – the original grounds of which had long been decided – continued to appear as “pending” before the Court due to the constant submission of new applications, creating a misleading impression before Parliament about the Court’s waiting numbers. “Let us take a fresh look at these matters rather than bear the burden of the past,” the bench said at the time.
“Several committees, investigations and regulations monitored by the court have come into effect. I hope that vigilance will continue thereafter,” Mehta told HT on Thursday, hours after the Supreme Court order.
“The MC Mehta case created a new field of jurisprudence in India and a new environmental framework. It became a catalyst for far-reaching changes and helped accelerate action at a time when policy-level action was not gaining momentum. Essentially, it laid the foundation for clean air in Delhi-NCR,” said Anumita Roy Chaudhary, Executive Director, Research and Advocacy, Center for Science and Environment.
On Thursday, the bench noted that all parties were in agreement with the decision to terminate the writ petition and directed that no further interlocutory or miscellaneous applications should be entertained.
All pending interlocutory motions in this case will now be converted into separate writ petitions, which will be categorized based on issues such as vehicular pollution, air quality, power plants, and waste management.
During the hearing, the bench also expressed concern about the abuse of public interest litigation, noting that some acts of political impeachment appear to have originated from outside the country and were allegedly funded by external forces. The court noted that no new petitions should be entertained without the court’s permission on sensitive matters such as air pollution.
The court also issued directions to enhance compliance ahead of hearings. It asked the CAQM to ensure that all its reports are made available to parties in advance, while the governments of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan have been instructed to submit and circulate their compliance reports in a timely manner.
Petition No. 13029/1985 is one of three long-standing cases before the Supreme Court.
The other two – WP(C) No. 13381/1984, relating to the Taj Trapezium Area, and WP(C) No. 4677/1985, relating to the Master Plan of Delhi and Closure of Unauthorised Buildings – are also being reorganized, with their preliminary applications listed separately, but not yet formally disposed of.
