Last week, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymala Bagchi, delivered a reminder that the Court does not have a “magic wand” to clear Delhi’s air.
The Bench underscored that the capital’s pollution crisis can be addressed only through scientific identification of each contributing factor, vehicular emissions, industrial activity, construction dust, waste burning, seasonal stubble smoke, and other regional influences.
The judges stressed that without a precise identification of sources and a corresponding evidence-based action plan, the annual winter smog will continue unabated. Equally important was the Bench’s emphasis on the role of domain experts, scientific bodies, and technical institutions in shaping long-term solutions.
The court called for continuous monitoring, coordinated action across jurisdictions, and strict accountability from implementing agencies. The message was clear that the capital’s air emergency requires a governance model that is steady, transparent, and resistant to political or administrative oscillation. It is in this context that two orders of the Supreme Court earlier this year merit a careful, dispassionate review.
Both the orders were passed in response to petitions, including by the Delhi government and private individuals, seeking relaxations. Both were intended as interim reliefs. And both have had direct implications for the city’s pollution profile this winter.
Ahead of Diwali, the court granted conditional relaxation on the sale and use of firecrackers. It attempted to find a middle path, allowing only green crackers, restricting sales to licensed vendors, and limiting bursting hours.
On the ground, however, implementation fell short. Unauthorised sales flourished, the composition of crackers remained unverifiable, and bursting continued beyond prescribed hours.
The court’s own recent observations highlight why such conditional relaxations require reassessment. When enforcement capacity is weak and compliance unreliable, nuanced permissions can inadvertently lead to broader violations.
The second order concerns old vehicles. The Supreme Court’s 2018 directive barring diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years was a cornerstone of Delhi’s anti-pollution regime. Its scientific basis was strong, as older engines, even when maintained, emit disproportionately high amounts of PM2.5 and other pollutants.
Earlier this year, however, the court directed authorities not to take coercive action against owners of such vehicles, pending a re-examination of the age-based ban. Petitioners argued that a blanket age criterion caused hardship and that a shift to an emissions-based model would be fairer and more technologically sound.
While an emissions-based system is a legitimate policy direction and aligns with global practice, it requires substantial infrastructural preparation, like upgraded testing facilities and tamper-proof certification.
In the absence of these, the interim relaxation has created ambiguity. Enforcement agencies have stepped back, and a significant number of older, high-emission vehicles continue to operate.
Delhi’s air-quality crisis is the cumulative outcome of multiple sources, seasonal behaviour, administrative lapses, and regional dynamics. It requires a governance ecosystem marked by consistency, predictability, and scientific discipline. Judicial interventions often necessitated by executive shortcomings must therefore be designed to reinforce, not dilute, the long-term regulatory framework.
The judiciary’s responsibility is to ensure that environmental directives are coherent, enforceable and aligned with public health requirements. The executive’s responsibility is to implement them with discipline. When either side falters, Delhi’s air becomes the casualty.
Revisiting earlier relaxations is not a matter of assigning blame. It is a matter of policy correction. If a measure intended to offer relief triggers wider non-compliance or weakens an established safeguard, the court has the authority and obligation to reassess it.
As Delhi’s winter pollution continues to affect millions, the priority must shift from episodic relaxations to durable, system-wide compliance. This requires judicial steadiness, administrative commitment, and public cooperation. All working together, not at cross purposes.