&w=3840&q=100)
SC grants interim relief to Delhi owners of end-of-life petrol, diesel cars
The directive came from a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, which was hearing a Delhi government plea seeking review of the court's 2018 order imposing the ban.
Current rules, set by the apex court in 2018, categorise diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years as end-of-life, effectively barring their use.
While issuing notice returnable in four weeks, the bench observed that in the past, people often drove their cars for 40–50 years.
Delhi govt questions ban's rationale
The Delhi government has argued that the ban is not based on any scientific study or environmental impact assessment. It cited tighter pollution-control regulations, wider enforcement of the Pollution Under Control (PUC) system, and the nationwide adoption of Bharat Stage-VI (BS-VI) emission norms from 2020.
It warned that, under the existing rule, even BS-VI-compliant vehicles could be forced off the roads in a few years without scientific justification.
The government further contended that the measure causes arbitrary hardship to residents whose vehicles meet PUC norms.
SG seeks halt to coercive measures
Appearing for the Delhi government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court to stop coercive steps such as vehicle seizure.
'I have a vehicle I use only for commuting between my home and court. After 10 years, it will have just 2,000 km on the odometer. Another vehicle used as a taxi may clock 1 lakh km in two years but continue running. Yet, I would have to sell my car simply because 10 years have passed,' Mehta argued.
The court will take up the matter after four weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bihar SIR process is ‘voter-friendly, not exclusionary': SC says ECI now allowing 11 documents as identity proof
The Supreme Court Wednesday said that the Election Commission of India (ECI) permitting to present 11 documents as proof of identity for the latest Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voters list in Bihar, compared to only seven documents for the summary revision carried out in the state in 2003, showed that the process is 'in fact voter-friendly.' A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this while hearing petitions challenging the SIR process. 'They are expanding the number of documents of identity… We understand your exclusionary argument may be with regard to Aadhaar, but the expansion of number of documents from what was followed in a summary revision to an intensive revision is, in fact, voter-friendly and not voter-exclusionary. It gives you more options,' Justice Bagchi said. 'See, it was seven items (in 2003). And now there are 11 items from which you can identify yourself as a citizen,' the judge added. The court said this as Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the process was exclusionary. Singhvi, however, continued to insist that it was. On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the norm of prospective voters merely having to furnish a declaration that they are citizens for inclusion in the list, while holding that the ECI can decide to include a citizen in the voter list or exclude a non-citizen from it. The top court said self-declaration of citizenship may lead to legal complications. The remarks were in response to Singhvi's argument that it was not within the remit of the ECI to decide on citizenship.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Stray dog relocation row: Activists, lawyers clash as advocate is seen slapping commoners outside Supreme Court
With the Supreme Court issued a relocation order of stray dogs from Delhi-NCR residential areas to shelters on Monday, a fight escalated between animal activists and lawyers outside the apex court. In the ruling Supreme Court asked the authorities to relocate all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR residential areas to shelters within eight weeks to control rising rabies cases. However, dog lovers and lawyers – standing outside the Supreme Court – clashed with each other just after the Supreme Court order. Soon, the clash turned into physical assaults quickly. The incident was recorded by the bystanders from their camera, and now the video has gone viral. In the video, a lawyer and some people can be seen fighting with each other. Though the bystanders at the scene tried to intervene, both the dog lovers and lawyers outside the Supreme Court were seen shouting and abusing. Upset with Supreme Court order, a large number of animal activists and dog lovers gathered at India Gate in Delhi. Animal welfare and care services (AWC) took to X and wrote, "We are the voters and we want to practice our constitutional right. The Indian Constitution, particularly Article 51A(g), mandates citizens to protect and improve the environment, including wildlife, and to have compassion for all living creatures." Earlier on Monday, the Supreme Court in its order to civic authorities in the Delhi NCR region, directed them immediately build dog shelters, move stray dogs and update the court. The apex court added that authorities must hire professionals who can tackle dogs, carry out sterilisation and immunisation and also have CCTVs to ensure dogs don't escape. "We are not doing this for us, it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest. Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to shelters. For the time being, forget the rules," Justice Pardiwala had. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi strongly criticised the order. Speaking to PTI, she said, "You have three lakh dogs in Delhi. To get them all off the roads, you'll have to make 3,000 pounds, each with drainage, water, a shed, a kitchen, and a watchman. That will cost about ₹ 15,000 crore. Does Delhi have ₹ 15,000 crore for this?"
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Supreme Court finds Bihar's SIR ‘actually inclusive' and ‘voter friendly' despite exclusion of Aadhaar — Here's why
The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that Bihar's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral roll was 'voter friendly' given that the 11 documents required to be submitted by an elector as opposed to only seven documents in summary revision conducted previously. (This is a developing story. Check back for updates)
