Delhi Air Pollution Crisis | SC allows action against pre-BS-IV vehicles

Today, a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi clarified that authorities may take action against vehicles with emission standards below BS-IV in the National Capital Region. It declined to interfere with the temporary closure of primary schools, holding that the decision falls within the policy domain.

Primary schools: Court declines to intervene

Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy challenged the decision to close schools for children from Nursery to Class V and shift to online classes. She argued that the closure disproportionately affected children from poorer families by disrupting the mid-day meal scheme and access to education. She submitted that these children did not contribute to pollution and often walked to school while parents continued to work outdoors. “Every time the schools shut down, we make sure the poor children do not eat,” she said.

CJI Surya Kant responded that the Court could not assess medical and environmental risks without expert determination. He added that the Court could not certify that commuting to and from school posed no health risk and cautioned against framing the issue along socio-economic lines. If harm were to occur to a young child, he said, serious medical consequences would follow irrespective of background.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that authorities decided to close schools after pollution levels worsened sharply from Sunday. She submitted that the situation placed children’s lives at stake. The Bench noted that winter vacations would begin shortly and held that the measure was temporary. It therefore found no reason to intervene.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for parents seeking a hybrid option, argued that older students did not necessarily have stronger immunity. CJI Surya Kant observed that physical attendance itself involved exposure risk and described the situation as a choice between competing harms rather than a permanent denial of schooling.

Role of toll plazas in aggravating congestion

The Bench took note of submissions on traffic congestion caused by toll collection booths, particularly near Gurgaon, which counsel said resulted in long queues of vehicles and added to air pollution in Delhi. 

CJI Surya Kant questioned the continuation of toll collection during a pollution emergency and asked why toll plazas could not be suspended temporarily to ease congestion. He observed that congestion at toll points was a daily experience for commuters and remarked that toll plazas generated avoidable litigation. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to examine temporary suspension and alternative arrangements.

Vehicle restrictions: Scope of protection clarified

The Court recalled that, by an 8 August Order it had restrained authorities from taking coercive steps against diesel vehicles older than ten years and petrol vehicles older than fifteen years. That restraint arose while the Court considered applications seeking recall of earlier directions on end-of-life vehicles. Today, the Delhi Government sought a clarification. ASG Bhati submitted that older vehicles with poorer emission standards significantly contributed to pollution and urged the Court to permit action against such vehicles.

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing as amicus curiae, supported the submission. She pointed out that BS-IV norms came into force in 2010 and that BS-III vehicles pre-dated those standards.

The Bench clarified that the earlier restraint operates only in respect of vehicles conforming to BS-IV and newer emission standards. Authorities may therefore take action against vehicles below BS-IV.

Construction workers and loss of livelihood

Counsel appearing for workers flagged non-payment to construction workers as construction activities had been suspended. 

ASG Bhati submitted that authorities had registered approximately 2.5 lakh workers, of whom about 7,000 qualified for payment after physical verification. CJI Surya Kant directed authorities to ensure that payments reached workers directly. He cautioned that Aadhaar verification alone did not guarantee effective delivery.

CJI Surya Kant asked authorities to plan in advance. He suggested diverting workers to permissible activities during construction bans and noted that pollution control boards faced manpower shortages that such workers could address.

Citizen complaints and CAQM

Singh submitted that local pollution-related grievances should be addressed at the level of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). She pointed to the opacity and technical limitations of existing mechanisms, including the SAMEER app and urged more transparent and responsive systems for citizen complaints.

CJI Surya Kant cautioned that unregulated platforms could lead to chaos or politicisation. At the same time, he acknowledged the absence of an effective and unified mechanism for citizen participation in addressing pollution-related issues.

Court’s Directions

Observing that air pollution had become an annual feature, CJI  Surya Kant said ad hoc responses could not address the problem and passed the following directions:

1. Directed MCD to consider suspension of nine toll collection booths for a temporary period and to place its decision on record within one week.
2. Directed NHAI to examine the feasibility of shifting the toll collection booths to alternative locations to be manned by NHAI, with a portion of the toll collected to be diverted to the MCD to compensate for the perceived loss during the temporary period.
3. Directed the states to file status reports on pending payment of stipends to construction workers affected by suspension of construction activities.
4. Requested the CAQM to revisit and strengthen long-term pollution control measures across identified sectors.
5. Clarified that no coercive steps shall be taken against vehicles conforming to BS-IV and newer emission standards.

The Court will hear the matter next on 6 January 2026.