Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Supreme Court Halts Immediate Action Against 10-Year Diesel & 15-Year Petrol Vehicles in Delhi-NCR

12 August 2025 9:42 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Supreme Court Halts Immediate Action Against 10-Year Diesel & 15-Year Petrol Vehicles in Delhi-NCR

Bench Protects Vehicle Owners Pending Review of 2018 Age-Based Ban

The Supreme Court today, August 12, ordered that no coercive action will be taken against owners of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles in Delhi-NCR, granting interim relief in the ongoing MC Mehta environmental litigation.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria passed the direction while hearing a batch of pleas linked to the controversial age-based ban. The Court also issued notice on the Delhi Government’s review petition against the 2018 ruling that upheld the ban.

Delhi Government Pushes for Stay on Ban – Calls Policy Arbitrary

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Government, urged the Court to pause enforcement, warning that the existing rule compels police to seize such vehicles immediately. He argued the policy was arbitrary since private vehicle owners face mandatory scrapping, while the same vehicles used commercially can operate beyond the age limit.

Delhi Govt’s Review Petition Seeks Scientific Study on Pollution Impact

The Delhi Government’s plea highlights that since 2018, stricter emission monitoring standards and expanded pollution testing coverage have been implemented. It seeks: A comprehensive scientific assessment by the Union Government and Commission for Air Quality Management on the actual environmental benefit of the ban.

Reevaluation of the policy based on fitness standards rather than arbitrary age limits.

From NGT Orders to Present Courtroom Clash

In 2015, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banned diesel vehicles over 10 years old and petrol vehicles over 15 years from plying in Delhi-NCR to curb pollution. The Supreme Court in 2018 upheld this directive.
In 2024, the Delhi Government issued End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Guidelines, ordering fuel outlets to stop supplying fuel to such vehicles from July 1, 2025 — a move put on hold after public backlash.

Intervention Pleas Seek Clarity on Effective Date & Fitness-Based Criteria

Several intervention applications have also been filed, represented by Advocate Charu Mathur, demanding that:

1. Vehicle fitness — not age — be the main criterion for scrapping.
2. 2024 ELV Guidelines be struck down for lack of statutory backing.
3. The 2018 order be applied prospectively, protecting owners who purchased vehicles before its implementation.

MC Mehta v. Union of India – WP (C) No. 13029 of 1985 & IAs
Next Steps: Court notices issued to all parties; interim relief to continue until further orders.

Latest Legal News