{"id":65380,"date":"2001-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001"},"modified":"2018-11-13T16:13:46","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T10:43:46","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. As. Cj, B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  13029 of 1985\n\nPETITIONER:\nM.C.MEHTA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OP INDIA AND ORS,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nDR. AS. ANAND CJ &amp; B.N. KIRPAL &amp; V.N. KHARE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2001 (2) SCR 698<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>With a view to check rapid deterioration of air quality in Delhi, which was<br \/>\nbecoming a health hazard besides being an environmental enemy certain<br \/>\ndirections have been issued by this Court from time to time in the main<br \/>\nWrit Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 28th July, 1998, some further directions were issued fixing a time<br \/>\nschedule after taking note of the recommendations made by the Bhure Lal<br \/>\nCommittee. One of the important directions [direction (g)] issued on that<br \/>\ndate was to the effect that the entire &#8216;city bus fleet was to be steadily<br \/>\nconverted to a single fuel mode of CNG by.31.3.2001&#8217;. Another direction<br \/>\n[direction (f)] was to the effect that &#8216;no eight year old buses were to ply<br \/>\nexcept on CNG or other clean fuel after 1st April, 2000&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, neither the Governmental authorities nor private bus<br \/>\noperators acted seriously or diligently in taking steps for the purposes of<br \/>\ncomplying with the aforesaid directions and this was inspite of the fact<br \/>\nthat we had issued a strong caution to all concerned in our order dated<br \/>\n28th July, 1998 that failure to comply with the aforesaid directions could<br \/>\nrender the concerned punishable for committing Contempt of Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>A number of applications have now been filed and requests made at the bar<br \/>\nseeking extension of deadline to convert the entire city bus fleet to<br \/>\nsingle fuel mode of CNG beyond 31st March, 2001. The Court has, on each<br \/>\ndate of hearing, been making it abundantly clear that the question of<br \/>\nallowing buses, other than those which run on CNG to ply after 31st March,<br \/>\n2001 did not arise. The Court made it clear to the administration as also<br \/>\nto all other concerned that they had failed to show sufficient earnestness<br \/>\nfor implementing the order dated 28th July, 1998 in the matter of<br \/>\nconversion of the commercial vehicles operating in Delhi into CNG fuel<br \/>\nmode; ignoring interest of health of citizens and the Court cold not<br \/>\noverlook their lapses. The extensions have now been sought finding that the<br \/>\ndeadline of 31st March, 2001 was fast approaching.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the applications filed for extension of time, difficulties being faced<br \/>\nby the transporters because of the non-availability of CNG conversion kits<br \/>\nfree from all defects; conversion of CNG at reasonable prices; lack of<br \/>\nstabilisation of CNG technology in respect of public transport as also the<br \/>\nnon-availability of CNG and CNG cylinders have been pointed out. There is<br \/>\nhowever, no satisfactory explanation offered either by the administration<br \/>\nor the private transporters as to why they were sleeping over all this time<br \/>\nand did not point out the difficulties earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are conscious of the fact that due to lack of effective action taken by<br \/>\nthe private but operators as also the governmental authorities, with effect<br \/>\nfrom 1.4.2001 inconvenience is likely to be caused to the commuting public<br \/>\nincluding the school children who use the city buses, but, this &#8220;urban<br \/>\nchaos&#8221;, (to use the expression used by the Administration) which may arise<br \/>\nas a result of not extending the deadline fixed by this Court, however, is<br \/>\na creation of the administration and the private operators and they have to<br \/>\nthank them-selves for it. They are accountable to the commuting public for<br \/>\ncreating this situation. The administration does admit its lapses&#8217; but the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Solicitor General has time and again submitted that for<br \/>\ntheir lapses, &#8220;let the commuting public not suffer&#8221;. It appears to be an<br \/>\nargument of despair.\n<\/p>\n<p>Out of a total fleet of 12,000 &#8211; 14,000 buses which operate locally in<br \/>\nDelhi, the DTC has a fleet of about 2,000 buses. About 6,000 buses operate<br \/>\non contract carriage system. Approximately 6,200 buses run on Stage Car-<br \/>\nriage Permit. These stage carriage buses operate locally in Delhi, either<br \/>\nunder the DTC KM. Scheme or under the permit scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>On behalf of the Stage Carriage Permit transport operators, Mr. K.K.<br \/>\nVenugopal, learned senior counsel, submitted that all their existing buses<br \/>\nare meeting emission norms for diesel vehicles as prescribed under the<br \/>\nMotor Vehicles Act and, therefore, they cannot be denied their right to ply<br \/>\ntheir buses &#8216;even if they do not conform to the directions issued by this<br \/>\nCourt on 28th July, 1998&#8217; since they were not heard before fixing the time<br \/>\nschedule on 28th July, 1998 (as they were not parties to the writ<br \/>\npetition). In other words what is sought to be challenged on behalf of<br \/>\nthese operators is the correctness of the order passed on 28th July, 1998<br \/>\nat this belated stage. It is not possible to accept that all these years,<br \/>\nthese private operators were &#8220;unaware&#8221; of the directions issued by this<br \/>\nCourt on 28th July, 1998. We are not impressed with the argument of Mr.<br \/>\nVenugopal. The directions issued by us were not in any adversarial<br \/>\nlitigation. Besides our order was, and it was conceded by Mr. Venugopal, as<br \/>\norder in rem and not an order in personam. All private operators, who<br \/>\noperate their buses in Delhi are bound by these orders, which were made to<br \/>\nsafeguard the health of the citizens, being a facet or Article 21 and had<br \/>\nbeen publicised from time to time both in the electronic as well as print<br \/>\nmedia. That apart, the Bhure Lal Committee had been set up under the<br \/>\nEnvironment Protection Act and it was directed by this Court that the<br \/>\nCommittee could give directions towards effective implementation of the<br \/>\nsafeguards of Environment Protection Act, more particularly in matters<br \/>\naimed at preventing air-pollution. Directions issued by the Bhure Lal<br \/>\nCommittee have, thus, legal sanctions and when accepted and incorporated by<br \/>\nthis Court become a part of its order, binding on all parties. Besides,<br \/>\ndirections given for safeguarding health of the people, a right provided<br \/>\nand protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, would override provisions<br \/>\nof every statute including the Motor Vehicles Act, if they militate against<br \/>\nthe constitutional mandate of Article 21. We must, however, hasten to add<br \/>\nthat norms fixed under Motor Vehicles Act are in addition to and not in<br \/>\nderogation of the requirements of Environment Protection Act. If the owners<br \/>\nof the Stage Carriage buses chose to ignore the directions issued by this<br \/>\nCourt on 28th July, 1998, they did so at their own peril. We wish to re-<br \/>\nemphasise that those of the private bus operators, who have chosen not to<br \/>\ncomply with the Court&#8217;s orders and have not taken any steps for conversion<br \/>\nof the vehicles to the CNG mode are not entitled to any indulgence from<br \/>\nthis Court. They must thank themselves for the situation in which they find<br \/>\nthemselves.\n<\/p>\n<p>The DTC and some other private operators, though belatedly, have now taken<br \/>\nsteps and placed orders for CNG buses. Some of the schools, which own their<br \/>\nown buses, have placed orders for CNG buses or conversion of their existing<br \/>\nbuses to CNG mode. Most of the schools are hiring buses from the DTC and<br \/>\nother private operators. Some other private operators have also taken steps<br \/>\nto convert their buses to CNG mode either by placing orders for Hew CNG<br \/>\nbuses or by conversion to CNG mode.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the affidavit filed by Mr. V.K. Bhatia on 22nd March, 2001 on behalf of<br \/>\nthe DTC, it has been stated that currently 860 buses, both CNG and diesel,<br \/>\nare being plied on school duties. It is further stated in the affidavit<br \/>\nthat these buses, apart from performing school duties in the morning and in<br \/>\nthe evening, are also, deployed on the general route duties from the nearby<br \/>\ndepots or terminals. It is also stated in the affidavit that in addition to<br \/>\n860 bases on school duties, 160 spare buses are kept ready for deployment<br \/>\nin case of replacement if the need arises. The affidavit discloses that<br \/>\norders have been placed by DTC for 1880 CNG buses and that order for<br \/>\nanother 120 buses is likely to be given shortly.\n<\/p>\n<p>In so far as contract carriage permit holders are concerned, we are<br \/>\ninformed that they have about 6000 buses in operation. According to their<br \/>\nlearned counsel, out of the said number of buses, 3100 buses run as school<br \/>\nbuses within Delhi under contract with different schools. About 1400 buses<br \/>\nrun as contract carriage to and from Delhi and within Delhi Approximately<br \/>\n1000 buses have ail India tourist permits and they ply inter-State.<br \/>\nApproxi-mately, 500 buses are 27 sealers and air-conditioned, which are<br \/>\nsolely used for the benefits of tourists to visit tourist spots in and<br \/>\naround Delhi. On their behalf their learned counsel has stated that these<br \/>\ncontract carriage permits holders have already placed orders for about 1000<br \/>\nnew CNG buses.\n<\/p>\n<p>After hearing learned counsel for the parties seeking extension of the<br \/>\nMarch 31, 2001 deadline, we are of the opinion that a blanket extension of<br \/>\ndeadline cannot be given as that would amount to putting premium on the<br \/>\nlapses and inaction of the administration and the private transport<br \/>\noperators. Orders of this Court cannot be treated lightly. They are meant<br \/>\nto be complied with in letter and in spirit. We, therefore, categorically<br \/>\ndecline to give any blanket extension of our directions (g) and (f) as<br \/>\ncontained in the order dated 28th July, 1998. However, in public interest<br \/>\nand with a view to mitigate the sufferings of the commuter public in<br \/>\ngeneral and the school children, in particular, we make the following<br \/>\nrelaxations or exemptions :\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Those schools which have as on 31st March, 2001 placed firm orders for<br \/>\nreplacement or conversion of the school buses owned by them to CNG mode,<br \/>\nbut, who have not so far obtained such buses running on CNG mode, are<br \/>\npermitted to run their existing buses, equal to the number of buses for<br \/>\nwhich conversion orders have been placed, provided such buses are not more<br \/>\nthan eight year old, upto 30th September, 2001 Those schools who are<br \/>\nentitled to and wish to avail of this concession, shall before 31.3.2001<br \/>\nfile affidavits in this Court giving details of the buses owned by them and<br \/>\nthe particulars of the orders placed by them for new CNG buses or for<br \/>\nconversion of the existing buses to CNG mode. They will keep on replacing<br \/>\nthe existing buses with CNG buses as and when made available during this<br \/>\nperiod.\n<\/p>\n<p>2, DTC has placed orders for 1880 buses. Some of the CNG buses have already<br \/>\nbeen received by them and are on their fleet. We permit the DTC to run 1880<br \/>\nexisting buses including the existing CNG buses which are not more than<br \/>\neight year old till 30th September, 2001. This, however, is subject to the<br \/>\ncondition that out of these 1880 buses, a full compliment of buses for the<br \/>\nschools, namely 860 buses plus the requisite spare buses shall be deployed<br \/>\nfor school duty. As and when new CNG buses are received by DTC, the<br \/>\nexisting buses shall be replaced.\n<\/p>\n<p>3,  It is represented on behalf of contract carriage operators of inter-<br \/>\nState and tourist buses that the applicants were under the bona fide<br \/>\nimpression that the expression &#8220;city bus fleet&#8221; in direction (g) of the<br \/>\norder dated 28th July, 1998 was not meant to take within its ambit buses<br \/>\nowned by such tour operators as they run mostly on inter-State routes as<br \/>\nluxury coaches. Even if that be so, their case would certainly be covered<br \/>\nby condition (f) of the order dated 28th July, 1998, which provided that no<br \/>\neight year old buses were to ply except on CNG or other clean fuel after<br \/>\n1st April, 2001. Even if, it was bona fide believed that these buses were<br \/>\nnot to be converted to single fuel mode of CNG, they could not in any case<br \/>\nply except on CNG or other clean fuel, such buses which were not more than<br \/>\n8 years old. Diesel, especially of the type available in India, is not<br \/>\nregarded as a clean fuel whereas unleaded petrol with tow Benzene content<br \/>\nis considered as clean fuel. These bus operators definitely need to comply<br \/>\nwith the directions given by us on 28th July, 1998 and it is for them to<br \/>\nswitch over to CNG or other clean fuel.\n<\/p>\n<p>4,  Out of the 6000 contract carriage buses, about 3100 also ply as school<br \/>\nbuses. We direct that owners of such contract carriage buses, who have<br \/>\nalready taken steps for replacement of their buses by CNG buses or conver-<br \/>\nsion to CNG mode, shall file affidavits giving particulars of the existing<br \/>\nbuses and details of the orders placed for replacement or conversion to CNG<br \/>\nmode before 31st of March, 2001. They shall be permitted to ply their<br \/>\nexisting buses, equal to the number of existing buses for which steps have<br \/>\nbeen taken to convert or replace to CNG mode, provided the existing buses<br \/>\nare not more than 8 years old. Such buses shall be permitted to ply till<br \/>\n30th September, 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  If any other bus operators, including stage carriage permit holders,<br \/>\nhave placed or shall place by 31st March, 2001 firm orders for CNG buses or<br \/>\nfor conversion to CNG mode, they shall also be permitted to operate equal<br \/>\nnumber of their existing buses, which are not more than eight year old till<br \/>\n30th September, 2001, under the control and direction of the transport<br \/>\ndepartment subject to their filing undertakings in this Court by way of<br \/>\naffidavits giving details of the buses owned by them, orders placed for<br \/>\nconversion\/new CNG buses by 31st March, 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  Owners of other commercial vehicles, including autos, who have placed<br \/>\nfirm orders for new CNG vehicles or for conversion to CNG mode shall also<br \/>\ngive details on affidavits by 31st March, 2001 about their existing<br \/>\nvehicles, as also details of the orders placed by them for new CNG vehicles<br \/>\nor for conversion to CNG mode. On these affidavits being filed, they shall<br \/>\nalso be permitted to operate an equal number of existing commercial<br \/>\nvehicles, provided the vehicles are not more than eight year old, till 30th<br \/>\nSeptember, 2001,<\/p>\n<p>7.  We are of the view that tourists should not be put to avoidable<br \/>\ninconvenience. After taking note of the fact that the number of buses owned<br \/>\nby operators having All India Tourist Permit is limited, we permit the<br \/>\noperators of All India Tourist Permits to ply their existing buses (both<br \/>\nair-conditioned and others), which are not eight year old, till 30th<br \/>\nSeptember, 2001, They shall, however, give details of such buses and also<br \/>\nfile an undertaking before 31.3.2001, agreeing to replace their fleet to<br \/>\nply either on CNG or other clean fuel by 30th September, 2001,<\/p>\n<p>8.  We direct that after 1st April, 2001, no commercial vehicle   will be<br \/>\nregistered in Delhi which does not conform to the order dated 28th July,<br \/>\n1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  The transport department shall take steps to ensure that there is no<br \/>\nmisuse or abuse of the relaxations given by us above.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  We, reiterate that except for the relaxation given above, no other<br \/>\ncommercial vehicles shall ply in Delhi unless converted to single fuel mode<br \/>\nof CNG with effect from 1st April, 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>During the course of arguments, it was contended before us that low sulphur<br \/>\ndiesel should be regarded as a clean fuel and buses be permitted to run on<br \/>\nthat It was submitted that in some other countries ultra low sulphur diesel<br \/>\nwhich has sulphur content of not more 0.001 per cent is now available. We<br \/>\ndirect the Bhure Lal Committee to examine this question and permit the<br \/>\nparties to submit their written representations to the Committee in that<br \/>\nbehalf. The Committee may submit a report to this Court in that behalf as<br \/>\nalso indicate as to which fuel can be regarded as &#8220;clean fuel&#8221;, which does<br \/>\nnot cause pollution or is otherwise injurious to health. Let the report be<br \/>\nsubmitted within one month.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 Bench: Dr. As. Cj, B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 13029 of 1985 PETITIONER: M.C.MEHTA RESPONDENT: UNION OP INDIA AND ORS, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/2001 BENCH: DR. AS. ANAND CJ &amp; B.N. KIRPAL &amp; V.N. KHARE JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2588,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\",\"name\":\"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001"},"wordCount":2588,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001","name":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-13T10:43:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-op-india-and-ors-on-26-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C.Mehta vs Union Op India And Ors on 26 March, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}