Slamming ‘super rich, show offs,’ SC extends ban on big diesel vehicles

[related-post]

The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi, added: “If a person knows that he is buying a polluting vehicle, he must be made to pay extra. The offence lies in using the fuel. Diesel is not innocent and we all know that.”

The court also shut the doors on a likely debate whether diesel pollutes more than petrol, after pointing out that the apex court had in 1998 ordered for diesel-run public transport buses to switch over to single fuel mode of CNG and it meant that the issue stood settled regarding diesel being a prime pollutant.

Hearing a PIL moved by environmentalist M C Mehta, the bench began the proceedings today by taking stock of the situation on the ground in the wake of the string of directives it had passed last December to control pollution. The bench was informed that the pollution level has come down in the Delhi-NCR after its directives, which included ban on fresh registration of big diesel vehicles, restricting entry of trucks in Delhi and imposition of green cess on commercial vehicles.

Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing as amicus, said that the peaks of pollution level have come down considerably after the court order. “Haryana diverted more than 4.25 lakh trucks. Over Rs 152 crore had been collected by imposing environment compensatory charges on commercial vehicles. Now we want a cess to be imposed on all diesel vehicles,” she told the bench.

According to Singh, a study by the Supreme Court-appointed Environment Pollution Control Authority has suggested that 25 per cent of the cost of a diesel vehicle should be imposed as compensatory charge after taking into consideration the differences in the running cost of diesel and petrol vehicles.

At this juncture, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium entered the debate. Representing Mercedes Benz, Subramanium said that he is requesting the ban on registration of large diesel cars to be lifted, especially because his client’s cars are BS VI compliant and run on technologically advanced engines. He disputed that diesel pollutes more than petrol and claimed the difference of emission of particulate matter (pm) between diesel and petrol cars is only 0.004 per cent.

But the bench refused to entertain a debate on it. “Don’t you think this court has already concluded against diesel when it ordered conversion of all diesel-run buses in Delhi to CNG? It is settled for us that diesel pollutes more and we will not reconsider it. We will proceed on this basis,” it retorted.

Seeking a modification of its order, a host of counsel representing various automakers and automaker associations also sought to convince the bench that diesel vehicles are preferred not only because of cheaper fuel but also because of fuel efficiency. They further pointed out that the 2016 Union Budget has also imposed an extra levy called as “Infrastructure cess” on production of vehicles.
The court, however, responded: “It is not towards environment compensatory charges. We can impose an extra tax. You (car manufacturers) may be passionate about your cars but you must realise that it is your city too and when you step out, you also breathe the same air. So you must help us so that our order for the Delhi-NCR sets the tone for similar orders in other parts of the country.”

Appearing for Maruti, senior lawyer P Chidambaram pleaded that the court should grant a hearing to them before a decision on levying an extra cess on diesel vehicles is taken. “There are other consequences too. Auto is a leading industry. The Budget has already imposed a tax. Imposition of another charge will have a negative impact on the aggregate demand, employment etc,” he said.

The bench replied: “We will hear you all. But we must say that we are conscious of the fact that this is going to affect business and economy. It is all in public interest and there is nothing adversarial. You should also help us in combating pollution. You should tell us possible alternatives as you are all responsible companies and should present consolidated views.” It then adjourned the matter, saying it will be heard next on a Saturday so that all the parties get ample opportunity to present their arguments.