Is a blanket ban on vehicles viable?
DEBATE Experts, lawyers say EPCA should do due diligence because even the SC allowed exemptions during oddeven
NEW DELHI: Environmental lawyers and legal experts have said that the Supreme Court-mandated environment pollution control authority (EPCA) should give a detailed, well-reasoned order as to why they were suggesting an intervention to curb pollution instead of leaving it to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to pass directions later.
They were reacting to the EPCA reiterating its suggestion to ban all non-cng vehicles in the national Capital, in recommendations sent to the pollution control board that implements such restrictions.
Experts said, the fact that the Supreme Court itself had agreed to several exemptions when it came to curbing the use of vehicles during the odd-even car rationing scheme, cannot be overlooked, arguing against blanket bans on vehicles.
“EPCA has powers to direct but why these last-minute interventions? Such decisions should be well planned and persuasive so that they are received well by people. Why is construction allowed if the situation is so bad. They should have continued with ban on construction as well. Their decision should be reasonable,” said Kanchi Kohli, researcher with Centre for Policy Research (CPR).
EPCA is empowered under Section 5 of the environment protection Act, and can also order the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process to ensure environmental standards are met.
The odd-even car rationing scheme was implemented in Delhi first between January 1 and 15, 2016 and then from April 15-30. It was again implemented for five days between November 13-17 in 2017. In all the editions, two wheelers, women-driven cars besides emergency and police vehicles remained exempted. In fact, when the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered that it be implemented without exemption to two wheelers in April, 2016, the SC stayed the tribunal order. The government had then argued that the public transport in the city could not take up so much load.
As per Grap, odd-even comes into force automatically when air quality hits severe + or emergency levels with PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations remain 300µg/m3 and 500µg/m3 respectively for 48 hours or more.
However, the EPCA has not mentioned these exemptions in its proposal to ban all non-cng vehicles to control the dipping air quality.
Environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta said the EPCA cannot pass an arbitrary order. “Of course EPCA is empowered to pass the order. But they should be able to defend their decision in court. It cannot be an arbitrary decision. EPCA also shouldn’t pass on the burden of making the direction to CPCB or any other body. They should simply say why they are taking such a decision and quote section 5,” said Dutta.
In their letter to CPCB, recommending restrictions on private vehicles, EPCA states that vehicles contribute as much as 40% of the total emission load in Delhi and roughly 30% in the region, quoting the System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting and Research (SAFAR) emission inventory.
“Even after removing trucks and other diesel commercial vehicles, which are the highest segment of this pollution load, the remaining vehicles add up to substantial load, particularly private diesel vehicles which contribute substantially to both NOX and PM emissions,” the letter said.
“All cities, which have similar emergency plans, such as Paris or Beijing, include restrictions on private vehicles, which is done by either number plate or by fuel type/age,” it said.
But the letter does not elaborate on how much air quality can improve if private vehicles are restricted. It also doesn’t mention which category of vehicles are to be exempted from these curbs.
Also, there are several other studies that put the share of vehicles in Delhi’s pollution at just 18-23%. NEW DELHI: A college teacher in Delhi University’s (DU) south campus has accused the principal of harassing her. The matter came to light when the teacher wrote to the university’ authorities, including the vice-chancellor’s office and the executive council (EC), last week urging them to set up an independent inquiry against the principal.
In her complaint, the 52-yearold teacher alleged that she has been “abused” and “humiliated” by the principal since 2013. “I have been targeted for raising my voice against irregularities in my department and the college over this period of time. I am being harassed and humiliated constantly while dispensing my duties and was also threatened of dire consequences for not following the principal’s directions,” she said.
The teacher has also accused the principal of “outraging her modestly”. ”I was not only asked to meet him alone many times but I did not comply him. He has used highly derogatory and humiliating words against me many a times...i request you set up an independent inquiry and take proper action,” she said.
The principal, however, denied the charges. “The teacher is levelling false allegations against me because I recently issued a notice to her for being irregular. She has not been performing her academic duties properly,” he said.
The principal also alleged that the teacher concerned had earlier raised similar allegations in 2013 following which action was taken against her. “She had misbehaved with the governing body members in 2013 after which she was demoted,” he said.
The teacher, however, said that she was removed from the post due to “unavoidable circumstances”. An EC member admitted receiving a complaint, “But the matter should first go to the college’s governing body (GB).”
The GB chairperson confirmed receiving the complaint.