NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to stay the government decision to bar entry of non-Delhi-registered vehicles that do not meet BS-VI emission standards into the national capital from November 1 to January 31.
The bench issued notice to the authorities concerned, asking them to file their reply by November 27, when the court will further hear the matter.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma refused to pass an “interim relief” at this stage on the petition by a Faridabad-based lawyer.
The Department of Environment and Forests on June 23 issued a notification banning entry of non-Delhi-registered pre-BS-VI vehicles into the capital for three months.
The petition, filed by Gurmukh Dass Kohli, claimed that Delhi needed a comprehensive plan, and “not a piecemeal or knee-jerk response that separates one car from an identical car, the petitioner's counsel asserted."
It claimed that the move was unsustainable as it restricts movement of citizens residing in the integrated National Capital Region, including advocates and litigants.
It further claimed that the policy was disproportionate since the ban was “not subject to the AQI readings on any given day”, and had been imposed despite the notification itself providing for less restrictive measures, like year-round enforcement and double parking charges.
"Under the impugned direction, from November 1, 2026 to January 31, 2027 on every day and at every hour, irrespective of the AQI (Air Quality Index) on that day, the petitioner will be barred from driving his duly registered Haryana vehicle into Delhi, while an otherwise comparable BS-IV vehicle registered in Delhi is outside the scope of the same restriction.
The classification turns on the place of registration and not on emission. Exhaust does not change with the registering authority; the differentia has no nexus with the object of controlling pollution and fails the test of Article 14," it claimed.
It added that the revised Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in September “does not provide for such a restriction, and the decision is not based on any scientific assessment”.
