Battling for Clean

Environment
Supreme Court,
Technocrats
and Populist
Politics in Delhi
Kuldeep Mathur

WORKING PAPER SERIES

Centre for the Study of Law and Governance
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi CSLG/WP/01
battling for clean environment
Supreme Court,Technocrats and Populist Politics in Delhi

Ku l d e e p M a t h u r

WORKING PAPER SERIES

Centre for the Study of Law and Governance
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

August 2004 [Reprint 2012]

CSLG/WP/01
Kuldeep Mathur has taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University and at
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. He has been
Director, National Institute of Education Planning and Administration
and Rector of Jawaharlal Nehru University. Recipient of awards for
his academic contributions from University Grants Commission,
Indian Council of Social Science Research and Indian Institute
of Public Administration, he has been a member of the United
Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration. He has
published on subjects such as public policy processes, bureaucracy,
decentralization and state-society relations.
battling for clean environment
Supreme Court,Technocrats and Populist Politics in Delhi

Ku l d e e p M a t h u r

D uring the early nineties, Delhi had been declared one

of the most polluted cities in the world. The hazardous
industries were located in those areas where people lived;
the river Yamuna on the banks of which the city stood was full
of toxic industrial effluents making the water unfit for use; the air
heavily laden with particulate matter and poisonous gases made
people vulnerable to many respiratory diseases and open to many
kinds of cancer and heart diseases. Motor vehicles had multiplied
phenomenally and were using fuel that did not adhere to emission
norms. Many environmental groups launched campaigns for Clean
Delhi but the government showed little interest.
In September 1986, in response to an appeal from concerned
citizens, the Supreme Court directed Delhi administration to file
an affidavit specifying the steps taken to implement laws concerned
with control and prevention of water and air pollution in Delhi.
From this year begins the saga of the Court passing various orders
for enforcing measures for clean air and seeing that its orders are
implemented. The ultimate triumph of the Supreme Court came

* Among many colleagues who willingly gave their time to comment on the
paper, my special thanks are to Rakesh Jayal without whose help research for this
paper could not have been possible. 1
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

in introducing Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as a single mode of

fuel for public transport in April 2002 in the midst of considerable
social and political conflict. Technocrats were not unanimous about
accepting CNG as the cleanest fuel. Commuters wanted an efficient
transport system and were not much concerned about the dispute on
choice of fuel and its impact on health. The purpose of this paper is to
narrate the role of the Supreme Court in controlling air pollution in
Delhi in the face of political contestation and government reluctance
in implementing what had already long been on the statute books.
This narrative focuses attention on transport vehicles and their
contribution to air pollution and will not refer to pollution caused
by hazardous industries and governments performance in shifting
them out from congested areas of Delhi.

Nature of Environmental Politics

When environmental protection and conservation arrived on the

global agenda, environmentalists mostly in Europe and elsewhere in
the West, took the route of electoral politics to bring about changes
in the social and economic order that will be conducive to a healthy
living, free from the polluting technologies. The primary efforts of
advocates of such strategies were devoted to political debate over
issues, influencing legislative processes through electoral contests,
development of policy, and the shaping of policy implementation.
The principal assumption underlying such activities was that liberal
democratic decision-making processes were sufficiently open to
allow for environmental agenda carried out through them (Fischer,
1995:194). However, they were disappointed at the pace that
this happened. Legislative acts were not always implemented but
allowed to languish on statute books. In such cases, democratic
processes stalled the translation of policy into action. Laws became
symbols of intention and not of action. They acted to enhance
a governments prestige among those who pushed an agenda of
2 sustainable development.
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

In the field of environment, the gap between policy and

implementation was especially noticeable. The political leadership
may agree to enactment of laws but block their implementation.
When activist environmentalist groups do not see enough action in
enactment of laws, they search for ways that can force the government
into implementing laws. Realizing that it is futile to work through
political leadership that has already demonstrated its resistance, they
began to search for state institutions outside the electoral arena that
enforce implementation.
In a way this impasse has sought to depoliticise environmental
conflict. In elaborating the concept of ecological modernization,
Hajer (1995:24-41), points out that the 1980s saw the emergence of
a new policy discourse that portrayed environmental protection as
a positive-sum game where economic growth could be reconciled
with ecological problems. Environmental protection was possible
within the existing socio-political structures and the obstacles related
to problems of collective action because environmental pollution
reflected inefficiency in the choice of technologies and their use.
What was needed was to upgrade the technologies. Hajer (1995:32)
emphasises that ecological modernization does not call for any
structural change but is, in this respect, basically a modernist and
technocratic approach to the environment that suggest that there is
a techno-institutional fix for the present problems. This means that
ecological modernization set off the environmental movements of
1970s that called for alternative social arrangements and economic
policies for development. The move away from electoral politics
and reliance on legislative action, thus, signifies a move towards a
new role for science and technology in political decision making
stressing that the goals of economic growth and that of environmental
protection are compatible.
Within the realm of politics, another event signalled a move
towards a technocratic solution of environmental problems in the
West. Termed as professionalization of reform by Moynihan while
referring to the scientifically oriented policy discourse during the 3
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

Great Society period (quoted in Fischer, 1993:25), it is widely

believed that technocratic discourse in policy process dominated
that time. The idea that political issues can be transformed into
technically defined ends that can be pursued through administrative
means was very influential. Technically trained elites took upon the
role of influencing policies most enthusiastically and there arose a
new technocratic class striving for political power. Technocratic
experts were portrayed as social engineers who were also changing
the policy process by transferring power from the corrupt and self-
serving politicians to virtuous and the technically trained experts.
(Fischer, 1993:22-27)
The United States was not alone in seeing the growth of policy
institutes that sought to influence public policy. Expert advice began
to be offered on an institutionalised basis in several countries (Weaver
and Stares, 2001). However, the proliferation of such institutes
contributed to the emergence a new kind of policy discourses, where
differing and conflicting advice was offered and the government
had to make a choice. The policy discourse took an argumentative
turn (Fischer and Forrester, 1993) where technical advice was not
necessarily unanimous. There were many dimensions to this lack of
unanimity. One was the quality of research and its validity. The other
was the political orientation of the experts and their institutes whose
advice was cloaked in a political garb that supported or opposed the
government of the day. In both the US and Britain policy institutes
represent diverse ideologies and compete for political influence
(Fischer, 1993; Stone, 2001). They also tend to set the public agenda
even before political parties take up an issue.

Policy Discourse in India

The policy discourse in India bears heavy technocratic influence from

the time the country embarked upon its strategy of planned economic
development. The leadership that took over the reins of government
4 when the country became independent identified its future with the
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

development performance of the West. Of particular significance

in this view was the perception of the significant role that science
and technology played in transforming society. Nehru was further
impressed by the strides Soviet Russia had made through judicious
planning and the rational use of resources, and he envisioned India
quickly attaining the levels of economic development achieved by
Western nations through industrialization and modernization. To
pursue such goals, services and advice of experts and technocrats was
very necessary. As Khilnani (1997:81) points out, Nehrus intention
was to establish the superior rationality of scientists and economists
in policy making. Very soon, the Planning Commission became the
exclusive theatre where economic policy was formulated.
The result was that public and its representatives had little say in
wider deliberations about Indias future. This lack of participation
was justified by the argument that the economic strategy demanded
technical evaluation of alternative policies and determination of
choices on scientific grounds (Chatterjee, 1997:274). Participation
in policy deliberations would also have opened up the whole debate
about the directions that India should takea debate symbolised by
the widely known different views of Gandhi and Nehru. Committees
of experts became an important instrument of resolving a political
debate and, even though Planning Commission did not have a long
life in this powerful role, the idea of technical conceptualization and
resolution of problems of social conflict has come to stay (Bjorkman
and Mathur, 2002)
As policy and research institutes multiplied in the last two decades,
research based arguments to shape public policy began to emerge.
Policies began to be contested on technical grounds. Apart from
other reasons, diverse sources of funding and sponsorship also led to
different policy recommendations. Government, earlier restricted to
its own institutions for research inputs, now had varied and alternative
sources of policy advice. Alternatives also provided opportunities
to experts with different political orientations to influence policy.
Technocrats competed with each other for expert political space and 5
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

research findings were not necessarily neutral. The garb of expertise

helped in offering policy advice that had political overtones. But the
debates were confined to the knowledgeable and the technicality
of arguments restricted widespread participation.

Environmentalists and the Supreme Court

In spite of this technocratic orientation, environmental politics in

India did not follow the route that it took in the West. Initially,
it was concerned with the use and control of renewable natural
resources where the issues revolved around communities dependent
on nature. The struggles were centred on control of common
property resources and revolved around critical issues of equity and
justice. Environmentalism began as an integral part of local level
activism for social justice (Bandyopadhyay, 2002). The early years
were dominated by forests, dams, degradation of land by mining,
indiscriminate use of pesticides, the unsustainable extraction of
groundwater, etc. Only in the last decade or so attention has
turned to the urban environment (Sethi, 2002). Different waves of
environmentalism brought in different actors with varying social
projects. If the earlier movements were akin to social movements,
the concern about urban environment was expressed by more
technically-oriented individuals searching for alternative answers
in modern science and technology.
Urban environment policies were framed within the technocratic
discourse of economic planning. The issue was not so much the
shaping policies but that of implementing those that had already
been enacted. For, since the time of the Stockholm Conference,
the government began to enact a series of laws for environmental
protection. The problem was that most of the time they just
remained on statute books. This happened in spite of the fact that
the number of administrative and institutional structures bearing
environmental responsibility within the government grew from less
6 than a dozen to more than 120 after the Stockholm Conference.
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

(Singh, 2000:77-108). Under the Acts passed in 1974 several

Pollution Control agencies were set up. The Bhopal gas tragedy,
1984 provided further impetus to such legislation and setting up of
institutions. But as stressed by Singh (2000:83), the implementation
structures were so fragmented and sectoral that the administrative
commitment and accountability became extremely compromised.
Institutions also lack teeth by design and not ignorance alone.
Such a situation highlights one other important characteristic of
Indian policy discourse that has made environmental politics follow
a different route to the West. And this is as true of environment
protection as any other policy area where state intervention tends
to upset the prevailing relationships of power and pelf. There is vast
evidence to show that wherever administration is involved in the
implementation of redistributive policies the operational process is
left ineffective. Little linkage is established between policy objectives
and capacity to implement these objectives. During the Plan era the
political leadership and those representing specific interests did not
bother to wield influence to shape policy for they knew that they
could scuttle its implementation. Policy planners went on to frame
policies that won accolades at international forums or pleased the
intellectual constituencies within the country. When these policies
did not show results, alibis were found in poor implementation (see
Mathur, 1995; Myrdal, 1968). The result is that the government
does not hesitate to formulate most forward looking policies; the
opposition, confident of scuttling them if implemented, allows them
on the statute books and thus little debate takes place at the policy
formulating stage. Much less attention is paid to strengthening
the capacity of the implementing system. The poor record of
administrative reform shows how urge for change remains more
in government documents than in reality. Water and Air Pollution
Control Acts were passed in 1974 soon after the Stockholm
Conference in 1972 but there was little to show on the ground.
In this situation, environmentalists were more concerned about
implementation than in enactment of laws. They began to turn 7
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

towards the Courts to direct the government to enforce laws. This

reliance on Courts has increased substantially after the Supreme
Court allowed petitions made on behalf of affected parties to enforce
Constitutional obligations of the State. In the last two decades
particularly, the judiciary has taken upon itself a more activist role.
The way the Supreme Court emerged as a protector of the interests
of those who could not approach the Court because of high cost or
lack of legal support is a story of the growth of what has popularly
come to be known as judicial activism. The Court started its
activism by insisting that the executive implement the laws that it
had initiated through legislation. The government accepted this
insistence because it was merely asked to do what it promised to do
through legislation.
The cases of environmental degradation that have been filed
before the Court were really speaking cases against inaction of the
State or wrong action of the State. Where issues of environmental
pollution caused by industrial units were raised, the Court made it
clear that they were failures of State in protecting the rights of the
residents to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution (Sathe, 2000:224). Together with this interpretation, the
Court also expanded on the concept of locus standi. Traditionally,
a person who petitions the Court should show that she has been
affected adversely by State action and that the conflict is justiciable.
But the Court took the view that persons with sufficient interest
could challenge government action or inaction. If public duties
are to be enforced and public interest served by their enforcement,
then public spirited persons and organizations must be allowed to
move the Court in furtherance of group interest even though they
may not be directly injured in their own rights and interests (Sathe,
2002:202). It is this reinterpretation of its role that has allowed the
Court to accept petitions that are made on behalf of the poor, the
underprivileged or those who cannot mobilize themselves. In doing
so, the Court has emerged today as redresser of public grievances
8 and in the eyes of many as an agent of social change.
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

However, by its very nature, the Court is unable to resolve

a political dispute and so in environmental cases it has relied on
experts and research institutes to help it to take decisions. As the
Court sought advice from experts, those involved in the movement
for environmental protection also began to seek their support. In
this way the interests of experts defining pollution problems as
those of inappropriate or out dated technology converged with
those of the environmental activists in their search for alternative
technologies to resolve environmental problems. However, the
problem of the Court became complex when there was no unanimity
on technological advice. In choosing a particular advice, the issue
of law or its interpretation is not under consideration. The choice
becomes dependent on its own understanding of the problem and its
conviction and may reflect its political or technological orientation.

Air and Water Pollution in Delhi

Environmental concern for air and water pollution began to be

expressed in India in legislative terms after the Stockholm Conference
in 1972. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was passed
in 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1981.
A Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution
was constituted in 1974 for the purpose of implementing this Act.
This Board was also given the powers to exercise and perform the
functions of the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Air
Pollution Act. In 1988, the Board was renamed as Central Pollution
Control Board and noise pollution was also brought under the
ambit of its activities. Among its many functions, it was enjoined a
research function of collecting, compiling and publishing technical
and statistical data relating to water and air pollution. The Board
is a technical body entrusted with the task of setting standards and
advising the government on technical matters. It does not have a
statutory function of enforcing standards and depends on its advisory
role to the Ministry of Environment to see that its standards are met. 9
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

The Environment Protection Act, an umbrella legislation,

was also passed by the Government of India in 1986. This Act
empowered the Government of India to take all such measures as
it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling
and abating environmental pollution. It also authorised the Central
government to constitute an authority with powers to perform such
functions as laid down in the Act.
At this point of time, various studies were showing that water and
air pollution was increasing at rapid pace in Delhi and in all other
metropolitan towns and there was growing frustration with the fact that
the government was doing little to check and control the situation.
A public interest appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in
1985 by an environmental lawyer Mr. MC Mehta in his capacity
as chairman of a non-governmental organization Environment
Protection Cell of Hindustani Andolan, an NGO that he helps run.
The Bhopal tragedy had taken place in 1984 and there was growing
concern about hazardous industries that emitted toxic gases which
were located in densely populated areas of Delhi. On December 5,
1985 gas leaked from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Ltd. Thousands
of people fled for safety, a large number was hospitalised and one
person died. A chlorine based industry, Hindustan Insecticides, was
located right in the middle of densely populated area. The factory
used about 70 tonnes of chlorine every day for the manufacture of
DDT. According to a survey conducted by another NGO at that
time, around 110 factories in Delhi lacked minimum safety measures
and were hazardous to health. The appeal also pointed out the
impact of innumerable transport vehicles that ply in and through
Delhi. Taking support from many studies, the appeals contended
that the emissions are above dangerous limits and were responsible
for increasing illness and death from respiratory and other diseases.
The appellants requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ, order or
direction to the Government of India and Delhi administration, Delhi
10 Electric Supply Undertaking and Delhi Transport Corporation
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

a. to close down the hazardous industries/units located in the

densely populated areas of Delhi or shift such hazardous units
far away from the population
b. to shift its most hazardous units which emit smoke/ash or
toxic substances into the air
c. to take action against those vehicle owners who emit noxious
carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, lead and smoke from
their vehicles. The vehicles plying in the capital be checked
periodically for emission of smoke and pollutants and standards
be fixed to control the exhaust especially of commercial
vehicles and register only such vehicles that are found in order.
d. to close down the thermal power plant or fix electrostatic
precipitators
What the appeal, filed by Mehta and his group, demanded of
the Supreme Court was to issue a writ of mandamus to the various
authorities to implement the laws enacted to prevent and control
pollution of air and water in Delhi. The laws already existed but
the Government of India or the Delhi administration were not
making sufficient efforts to implement them. It pointed out that the
pollution was taking place because of hazardous industries emitting
dangerous gases into air and effluents into the Yamuna River and
due to emissions from the motor vehicles owned by government as
well private individuals. The basic argument was that the state was
not fulfilling its constitutional obligations. Articles 39(e), 47 and
48(a) of the Constitution cast a duty on the state to secure the health
of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the
environment. The appeal demanded that the Court direct the state
to fulfil its constitutional obligation of environmental protection to
the people.

Control and Prevention of Air Pollution

The campaign against vehicular pollution gained momentum

only after the Government of India constituted the Environment 11
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority for the National

Capital Region under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 in
1998. This is popularly known as the Bhure Lal Committee, named
after its chairman who was then a member of the Central Vigilance
Commission. Among others, members of the Committee included
Anil Agarwal from Centre of Science and Environment which was
spearheading a campaign for cleaner Delhi; Jagdish Khattar from
Maruti Udyog (car manufacturer) representing the automobile
industry; DK Biswas, chairman of the Central Pollution Control
Board; and Delhis Transport Commissioner, K Dhingra. This
Committee was a statutory body and the Court enjoined that its
directions were final and binding on all persons and organizations
concerned. With reference to vehicular pollution, the Government
in its notification (The Gazette of India, 1998:4) enjoined that the
Authority shall take all necessary steps to ensure compliance of
specified emission standards by vehicles including proper calibration
of the equipment for testing of vehicular pollution, ensuring
compliance of fuel quality standards, monitoring, coordinating action
for traffic management and planning.
In its First Report (1998), the Committee drew attention to the
fact that several steps had been taken by the government to control
and prevent pollution but their impact has been limited because of
old vehicles in use and quantum increase in new vehicles. Therefore,
the Committee proposed a priority of measures that needed to be
completed on a previously laid time schedule. This schedule was
as follows:

Priority Measures Deadline for

Completion
Augmentation of public transport to 10,000
Buses from existing 6000 01.04.2001
Elimination of unleaded petrol from Delhi 01.09.1998

12 (contd...)
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

Priority Measures Deadline for

Completion
Installation of pre-mix dispensers for the supply of only
pre-mix petrol in all petrol stations to two Stroke engines 31.12.1998
Replacement of all pre-1990 autos and taxis with new
vehicles using clean fuel 31.3.2000
Replacement, with financial incentives, of post-1990
autos and taxis with new vehicles on clean fuel 31.03.2001
Ban on plying of buses more than 8 years old except on
clean fuels 01.04.2000
Entire city bus fleet (DTC and private) to be steadily
converted to single fuel mode on CNG 31.03.2001
New Inter State Bus Terminus to be built at North and
South West borders of National Capital Territory Delhi
to avoid pollution due to entry of inter-state buses 31.03.2000
Gas Authority of India to ensure availability of CNG by
increasing CNG supply outlets in the city from 9 to 80 31.3.2000
Two autonomous fuel testing laboratories to be 01.06.1999
established for monitoring fuel quality specifications
and adulterations

The critical part of these measures was concerned with the

conversion of public and private transport vehicles to single fuel mode
of CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and phasing out of vehicles that
were more than 8 years old. Deadlines were set for implementing these
measures. This Report was accepted by the Supreme Court which
passed orders to implement it according to the deadlines set. These
orders were passed in July 1998. The Court also directed that the
number of buses should be increased from the 6,600 to 10,000. The
critical deadlines that raised political storm were for the replacement
of old vehicles with those that ran on clean fuel, the adoption of single
fuel mode of CNG and augmentation of public transport buses. These
measures were to be implemented by 31st March 2001. 13
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

Public transport in Delhi is provided by both the public and the

private sector; hence the costs of conversions would fall on both.
Increase in the number of buses would lead to greater competition
among the private operators. In the public sector, Delhi Transport
Corporation (DTC), has been sustaining continuous losses which
climbed from Rs.2.02 billion in 1996 to Rs.8.5 billion in 2001.
Besides, the Corporation has borrowed about Rs.7.2 billion from the
State government but had defaulted on repayment, not having paid
even a single instalment in five years (Times of India, May 30, 2002).
The court orders were an additional burden on such a lossmaking
corporation which could implement them only if the State or
Central government bails it out. The private operators of buses were
not inclined to make the necessary heavy investment or allow more
operators to enter the market; rather they looked to avenues that could
at least postpone the implementation of the order. Thus, the public
and the private sector found common cause in making attempts to
delay the implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court.
As the time approached for phasing out of publicly or privately
owned old diesel buses and the adoption of single mode of fuel
of CNG, the Supreme Court began to be approached by the
Government of India and the Delhi administration to give them
more time to meet the requirements of deadlines. Time was first
extended to 30th September 2001 and then to 31st January 2002
and finally till 31st March, 2002.
Postponement was argued on the plea that the preparations for
the switch-over were taking time and the commuters would be
put to great difficulty for there would not be enough buses on the
streets. There may be virtual anarchy on the Delhi roads. The plea
was also taken that bussing of school-children will be affected if all
diesel buses are taken off the roads because of lack of replacement.
Delhi administration began to announce how the school vacations
may have to be staggered. The private operators threatened to go on
strike unless Delhi administration provided them financial incentives
14 through low interest loans and higher fares. The Central government
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

responsible for the supply of CNG argued for more time to establish
dispensing and feeder stations and divert the supply from other uses
to public transport in Delhi.
Till this time, though, the basic order that CNG would be the
single fuel was not disputed. However, the Court was provided with
a discordant note on this ground after a committee, appointed by
the Government of India on September13, 2001 to reconsider the
single fuel decision, submitted its report. A committee of experts
drawn from the fields of environment, energy, vehicular technology,
etc and headed by Dr. R.A Mashelkar, Director-General, Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research, was appointed to recommend
an appropriate auto fuel policy to the Government. The Committee
set for itself several guidelines for its work. An important one that set
parameters for its deliberations was rather than a rigid prescriptive
policy, a flexible policy which allows multi-fuel and multi-technology
option for reaching prescribed emission norms was considered
desirable. The Committee assigned studies on urban road traffic
and air quality to specialised institutes like Central Road Research
Institute, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
and the Institute of Petroleum.
The interim Report of the Committee (Government of India,
2001) made some major recommendations that in some ways were
counter to the Supreme Court directives. It began by acknowledging
that public health is of prime concern and air quality is a crucial
factor in determining it. It also set itself the task of improving air
quality through measures that were cost effective and at the same
time practical for reducing pollution from in use vehicles and setting
realistic/achievable standards for new vehicles. The Committee
emphasised that auto fuel policy needs to be guided by evidence
based analysis, based on sound scientific principles and should also
be based on cost effectiveness. Then it went on to recommend that
the government should decide only the vehicular emission standards
and the corresponding fuel specifications without specifying vehicle
technology and the type of fuel. The Committee, thus, did not 15
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

endorse the idea of a single fuel being clean and that public and
private transport should be run only on CNG.
The recommendations of the Mashelkar Committee prompted
the Government of India to appeal to the Supreme Court not to
insist on CNG as the only clean fuel. As a matter of fact, it made
the plea that buses should be permitted to run on low sulphur diesel.
It was contended that in some countries ultra low sulphur diesel
(having sulphur content of not more than .001 percent) was now
available. The battle was being redrawn for up to now neither the
Government of India nor the Delhi administration was contesting
the Courts insistence on single mode of fuel of CNG but asking for
time to implement its decision. Now, the Courts insistence on CNG
as single mode of fuel was being questioned. In its order of March
26, 2001, the Court asked the Bhure Lal Committee to examine this
question and permit various parties to submit their representation
to it. The Court then demanded a report from the Committee
indicating which fuel can be regarded as clean fuel that does not
cause pollution or is not otherwise injurious to health.
Several organizations and associations made representations
to the Bhure Lal Committee. Among these were the Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, Society for
Automobile Manufacturers, several associations of transporters,
two major manufacturers of CNG chassis busesTata Engineering
and Ashok Leyland, petrol dealers association, etc. The Committee
also solicited opinion from Prof. Dinesh Mohan, Professor, Indian
Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT) and Tata Energy Research
Institute (TERI).
In terms of the clean fuel controversy, the technical views of
TERI, IIT and Centre for Science and Environment were important.
In its representation, TERI argued that while the government may
continue with its programme of introducing CNG buses, it should
not insist on CNG as a single mode fuel. It suggested that there is
a need to explore retrofit options of less than eight year old diesel
16 buses with diesel oxidation catalyst with 500 ppm sulphur. More
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

studies were needed to compare the emissions of Indian buses

powered by alternative fuels like ultra low sulphur diesel and CNG.
RK Pachauri (2001:6), Director-General of TERI, argued that the
decision in favour of CNG was taken without any trials being carried
out under operating conditions with this as well as substitute fuels.
He underlined the point that there is overwhelming evidence now
that CNG is not even the best fuel for reducing pollution, quite
apart from its practical problems. Based on the IIT study findings,
he supported the ultra low sulphur diesel as an alternative fuel.
IITs Professor Dinesh Mohan also argued that specific fuels
should not be prescribed and that choice should be based on
technologies available or expected in the future and on a sound
cost benefit analysis. Even for Euro-IV and Euro-V standards
in Europe, there is no agreement on the fuels to be used in a
widespread manner. He cited the study conducted by IIT which
argued that CNG is no better than ultra low sulphur diesel as
automotive fuel. Contrary to popular perception, CNG vehicles
emit more carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide than those
running on .05 per cent ultra low sulphur diesel. Use of CNG
does reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions but increases CO
and hydrocarbon emissions from buses(Times of India: 2001).
The bus fleet in Delhi should be converted gradually allowing for
new technologies to move in. He also raised the issue of costs for
the operator of bus services and to the commuter in deciding the
maximum subsidy that government should pay for public transport.
In accepting the polluter pay principle, taxes on car users have
to be raised to subsidise the bus fares.
Anil Agarwal of the Centre of Science and Environment disputed
the contention that the CNG buses were more expensive. He also
contested the view that ultra low sulphur diesel could be considered
as an alternative fuel. He cited evidence to show that reduction
of sulphur in diesel fuel, even as low as 10ppm, does not make it
a clean fuel. On the basis of Swedish experience, he argued that
to make diesel somewhat as clean as CNG, a package of fuel and 17
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

technologies is neededvery low sulphur and PAH diesel together

with good engines, oxidation catalysts, particulate traps and certain
kinds of catalysts. The cost of the above package is very high and
cannot be recommended.
The representation of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas,
Government of India, made the plea that adequate amount of gas is
not available if the entire bus fleet will have to be run on CNG. It
contended that there will be a serious crisis when the CNG supply
will have to be diverted from other gas based industries like power
and fertilisers, etc. It also argued that there can be uncertainties in
supply because of breakdowns of the gas processing facilities or the
pipelines and therefore, dependence one single fuel may not be
viable. The oil companies as also the Society of Indian Automobile
Manufactures represented that low sulphur diesel may be considered
as clean fuel. The chassis manufacturing companies Asok Leyland
and Tata Engineering supported the use of low sulphur diesel too.
The transporters associations joined the same chorus to argue that
CNG is not available in places outside where their transport also
plies and therefore, demanded subsidies for buying new buses to ply
in Delhi in the shape of raised bus fares, etc.
In its recommendations to the Supreme Court submitted in
August 2001, the Bhure Lal Committee (Environment Pollution
Authority, 2001) rejected hydro-carbon fuels as clean fuels and
accepted CNG, LPG and Propane as environmentally acceptable fuels
for Delhi. It then made several recommendations for preparing plans
of supplying adequate quantity of gas, providing subsidies to operators
for change over etc., supply schedule from bus manufactures and
ultimately heavy fines for those operators who continue to ply diesel
buses after a stipulated date.
The Supreme Court considered the Bhure Lal Committee
Report on Clean Fuels and passed orders on April 5, 2002 which
were to be complied with by the transporters, Delhi administration
and the Government of India. This was a landmark judgment for
18 the Court chose to comment upon various facets of public life apart
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

from upholding the case of CNG as single mode of fuel for the
National Capital Region of Delhi. A former Chief Justice of India
who was in the forefront in leading the judiciary towards activism
called it a seminal and historic judgment (Bhagwati, 2002:50). The
Court reiterated its concern for the health of people in Delhi and
reminded the governments of their constitutional obligations. It
quoted World Bank data to show the extent of correlation of air
pollution with respiratory and cardio-vascular diseases in India and
abroad and felt that the health cost should be taken into account while
considering costs of controlling air pollution. It underlined a World
Bank estimate that suggested using 1992 data, that the annual health
cost to India was to the order of Rs. 55.5 billion due to ambient air
pollution while the cost to Delhi alone was to the order of Rs.10,000
million. It justified its intervention by emphasising the lack of effort
in controlling pollution and protecting the environment by the
enforcement agencies even when adequate laws were in place.
The Court chided the Government of India for not taking
effective steps to halt or control this deterioration in air quality. The
Court termed it baffling that first the Delhi administration and
then Government of India was not prepared to implement the Court
orders in spite of postponement of deadlines and extension of time
given by the Court. It is worthwhile to quote what the Court said
in this regard, .leaves us with no doubt that its (governments)
intention, clearly is to frustrate the orders passed by this Court with
regard to conversion of vehicles to CNG. The manner in which
it has sought to achieve this object is to try and discredit CNG as
the proper fuel and, secondly, to represent to the Court that CNG
is in short supply and, thirdly, delay the setting up of adequate
dispensing stations. The Court disapproved the appointment of
the Mashelkar Committee and saw it as a ruse to bypass its orders.
It thought that the Committee was not serious in its concern for
public health for the government had not even appointed a doctor
or an expert in public health on the Committee. It further strongly
disapproved of this Committees recommendations by noting that 19
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

norms of emission had been established long ago and choice of the
fuel was left to the users but the air of Delhi continued to deteriorate
for there was no compliance. The Court used strong words to
say that recommending emission norms is a clear abdication of
the constitutional and statutory duty cast upon the government
to protect and preserve the environment and is in the teeth of
precautionary principle.
The Court rejected pleas of shortage of CNG or inability to
provide adequate number of dispensing stations and saw them as
governments low priority in fulfilling its constitutional obligations
regarding public health. This low priority was expressed in the fact
that the Government was continuing to supply CNG at low prices
to commercial units while denying it to public transport which was
willing to pay higher rates. The Court emphasised that If there
is a short supply of an essential commodity, then the priority must
be of public health, as opposed to the health of the balance sheet
of a private company. To enable industries to cut their losses, or to
make more profit at the cost of public health, is not a good sign of
good governance, and this is contrary to the constitutional mandate
of Articles 39(e), 47 and 48(a). It also rejected the idea of multiple
fuels and did not accept the findings of studies that showed that
it was possible to have an alternative in low sulphur diesel. Then
the Court went ahead to pass orders regarding the phasing out of
buses run on diesel, penalising those that continued to ply on diesel
after a particular date, directing the government to frame plans to
supply CNG in adequate quantities and also plan financial incentives
schemes to encourage the private operators to convert their diesel
fleet into that of CNG.
It is clear that the Supreme Court was fighting a battle with
government agencies that were either not interested in environmental
issues or were prompted by other interests to take up cudgels on
behalf of groups that saw the status quo as a profit making enterprise.
Research studies were pitted one against the other and torn out of
20
context; none of the specialists tended to integrate and simplify
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

findings to mobilize opinion or raise public debate. Where were

the consumers of public transport and how were they reacting to
technical decisions being taken in their (read public) interest? It is
this aspect of policy contestation to which we now turn.

The Popular Response

As the deadline of April 2001 approached, Delhi administration

which was primarily responsible for converting the diesel buses
into those of CNG began seeking the alibi of crisis on the roads of
Delhi in order to seek postponement of the date for conversion. The
diesel buses went off road and the operators went on strike on the
streets of Delhi. Three years had passed since the Courts order and
Delhi administration had acquired only 400 CNG buses to run on
Delhi roads. This number would bear the burden of around 10,000
buses running in Delhi. When diesel buses went off the roads, the
commuters became angry, burnt buses and stoned policemen on
Delhi streets. In response the Chief Minister dared that she would
face any punishment for contempt of Court in the interests of
the people of Delhi. And this interest was in their commuting in
diesel buses. No reference was made to the health of the people of
Delhi. If this were not enough, the Chief Minister went on to add
in the Delhi Assembly that the Supreme Court did not understand
the ground realities (see Vohra,2001:3). Such a posture of Delhi
administration sought to gain popularity for the Chief Minister.
The message that emanated from the floor of the House caught the
peoples imagination and in public perception the stock of the Chief
Minister went high. The commuters were in particular all praise for
the Chief Minister who not only empathised with them but was also
willing to go to jail for their cause (Vohra, op.cit.). Without taking
any blame for lack of preparation in three years since the Supreme
Court set the deadline, Delhi administration took up cudgels on
behalf of transport associations that were demanding postponement
of the deadline. 21
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

The Central government took a similar stand by arguing that

extreme hardships were being caused to the citizens of Delhi because
of supply bottlenecks. Dispensing stations had not been placed and
public transport vehicles were standing in long queues for long hours
to get CNG. The Government of India also pleaded shortage of
supply of gas and therefore argued that CNG should not be made
mandatory for all public vehicles. The media was full of stories how
the inadequate number of dispensing stations was causing harassment
to vehicle drivers who had to work during the day, spend nights to
fill CNG, had little to eat or sleep, and could not return home to
see their children.
Political leaders in opposition came to support the cause of
the transporters. The Congress party was the elected government
of Delhi while the BJP ruled at the Central level. The Congress
party had come to power by defeating the BJP that was now in
search of causes to win back popularity. It found one in CNG.
Knowing that its party ruled at the Centre, it led transporters
demonstrations against the Delhi government for relaxation of the
deadline. The Congress party held its own rallies against the BJP
and challenged them to debate. After various postponements, when
the deadline in April 2002 approached, the local BJP party led the
transporters to believe that it could get an Ordinance passed by the
Central government declaring diesel as a clean fuel. The Central
government refused to do so because that would have brought it
in direct conflict with the Supreme Court. But the political parties
did not make any effort on educating the people about the aims
of Supreme Courts decisions in promoting healthy environment.
Health, disease and polluted air did not figure prominently in the
public debate and discussion. Public debate carried in media pointed
more to the travails of the commuters rather than the need of clean
air for the citizens of Delhi. A reader writing in the letter to editor
column (The Hindu, June 10, 2002:3) says, The common man
who depends on the buses alone will pay the price for clean air.
22
He further adds, As things stand, it will take a long time to add
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

more CNG buses and put in place adequate number of CNG-filling

stations. In the intervening period, it is the poor who will continue
to suffer. Sentiments expressed in the letter captured the mood of
the public debate and discussion.

Research Institutes and Technocrats

As already mentioned, the two leading environmental research

groupsTERI and CSEcited research studies whose findings
were pooh-poohed by the other. A Professor of Transport from
the IIT also joined the fray. While CSE continued to be the most
vocal supporter of CNG and hailed the decisions of the apex Court,
TERI adopted a view that was supportive of governments stand of
multiple fuel policy and for allowing ultra low sulphur diesel too.
The IIT expert also insisted on greater flexibility and did not want
the options of new technology to close by adopting a single mode
of fuel. CSE conducted a strong public campaign discrediting the
other two opinions and casting doubts on their sincerity in promoting
public interest because of ones affiliations with manufacturers of
diesel buses and the sponsorship of the others professorial chair by
funds from a car manufacturing company. Research findings were
used to support one position or the other. Allegations were made
that full picture was not emerging.
The most prominent role in the campaign for CNG was played
by the Centre for Science and Environment. While Tata Energy
Research Institute had been bringing out studies on levels of pollution
in Delhi and its findings found place in the petition submitted by
Mehta in 1985, the CSE adopted a more active advocacy role. In
its series on the State of Environment it brought out a report Slow
Murder: The Deadly Story of Vehicular Pollution in India in 1996.
The Report carried considerable data to show how pollution levels
were rising in Indian cities and argued that vehicular pollution is the
result of a combination of bad vehicular technology, poor fuel quality,
poor vehicular maintenance and non-existent traffic planning. The 23
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

Report became the basis of its public campaign. The Director of

CSE was appointed to the Bhure Lal Committee, which provided the
Centre further opportunity to conduct a more vigourous campaign
for adopting a clean fuel for Delhi.
In this campaign CSEs Anil Agarwal did not mince words.
He was a spirited and bold advocate of CNG and effectively used
his membership of the Environment Pollution Control Authority
(Bhure Lal Committee) to press the choice of CNG. Accusing the
detractors of CNG of various kinds of ulterior motives, Agarwal
(2002) pointed out that the unseemly politicisation of the CNG
issue in Delhi, with rival parties busy accusing each other for the
ongoing mess and demanding an alternative fuel, shows how little
our leaders care about the environment, public health and just
plain commitment of purpose. He then hammered on saying,
the question that we should ask, especially in India where private
interests rule over public interests, whose interest is CNG stepping
on? Does the answer lie in the fact that CNG, unlike diesel, cannot
be adulterated, cannot be siphoned off and there is no money in its
spot purchases? (ibid.)

Concluding Remarks

The Court passed its final orders in April 2002 that upheld the
recommendations of the Environmental Pollution and Control
Authority, popularly known as the Bhure Lal Committee. The
committee rejected multiple fuel policy, which would have allowed
the use of ultra low sulphur diesel, and chose a single fuel policy by
recommending CNG and other gases like LPG or propane. This
choice contradicted the recommendations made by the technical
committee of the Government of India and various research
institutes. The choice was, however, the same as the one advocated
by the Centre for Science and Environment. The Director of the
Centre, who was a very vociferous advocate of this choice, was
24 also member of the Bhure Lal Committee. It is obvious that the
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

Committee was effectively persuaded by Agarwal who dissuaded it

from considering any other alternative presented by othersresearch
institutes, government committees or associations of transporters or
vendors of oil!
The Supreme Court did not hesitate to pass severe comments on
the motivation of governments and in effect said that they did not
work in public interest. It did not accept the plea that CNG was
in short supply. It pointed out that, if so was then the government
had wrong priorities for CNG was still being supplied in adequate
quantity to private industries which were paying less than what
public transport was willing to pay. The motivation for setting up
the Mashelkar Committee was questioned and, despite the fact
that it was chaired by the top government technocrat, its report
was dismissed for echoing the government voice and not reflecting
sound technical advice. The Court went on to say that it is nave of
Mashelkar Committee to expect merely laying down fresh emission
norms will be effective or sufficient to check or control vehicular
pollution. Similarly, the Court did not hesitate to say explicitly that
the governments were not ready to accept its orders.
The political leadership, whether in government or in opposition,
showed limited perspective for short term electoral gains, little
mobilization to seek support for policies that would improve
environment and make for healthy living took place. Instead the
leadership sought support from the people to fight the Supreme
Court. Panic spread among the parents of school children when the
Delhi administration made an uncalled for announcement that it
would close all schools till the issue of choice of fuel was decided.
The advice from technocrats was not unanimous. Different
perspectives were articulated. Reference to research or knowledge
does not signify a single body of thinking, data or literature that is
commonly recognised and accepted (see the discussion Stone et.al.,
2001). The normative dimension of research cannot be ignored.
Research agendas can reflect the interests of those who want to
influence the way they would like the policy discourse to proceed. In 25
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

many ways research legitimises those who commissioned or funded

it. Thus the citing of different research findings reflects a struggle
between different world views or regimes of truth (ibid). In
bridging research and policy, different knowledges compete leading
to a techno-political struggle. In this case of adoption of CNG as
a single fuel public transport in Delhi, the Supreme Court became
the final arbiter rather than the political bargaining process. But the
Courts decision was not an interpretation of law; it was a choice of
world views that opted for one kind of technology.
Another reason for the rise of techno-political struggles is the
indeterminacy of science in finding single solutions or decisive
answers to environmental problems. The concept of clean fuel
had political overtones primarily because scientific evidence was
not conclusive. The indeterminate nature of the relevant scientific
evidence opened the door for competing interpretations of the same
evidence (see Fischer, 2000 especially chapter 5). In addition, in a
recent contribution, (Narain, 2002:18), the Director of Centre for
Science and Environment, laments the fact that most scientists are
employed with government agencies in India and are not ready to
speak out. Despite the high levels of particulates in Indias urban air,
the Centre has not been able to find a single scientist who has studied
the health effects of this pollutant. In such a situation, the easiest
technique is to find a problem in every solution. She goes on to plead
for the environmental movement to find its own scientiststhose
that are not influenced by bureaucrats and politicians.
In ushering in a new social order, the environmentalists have been
critical of the way technocratic discussions tend to avoid democratic
politics with its political parties and interest groups. They were against
the way the technocrats are impatient with political problems that
block implementation of rationally determined solutions and perceive
technocratic policy discourse as antithetical to democratic processes.
However, the battle for clean air for Delhi to provide healthy living
to its citizens was fought on technocratic grounds. The arena of
26 policy discourse was monopolised by technical findings to prove the
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

superiority of fuels. In its public campaign, the Centre for Science

and Environment labelled all opposition to CNGwhether coming
from other technical think tanks or the transporters, governments,
political parties or even principals of affected schoolsas political
obstacles to a rational decision. Various leaders of these groups were
termed as saboteurs (Down to Earth, 2001 and 2002).
The way the Supreme Court, the technocrats and experts and
the political leadership in opposition and in government played their
roles in the battle for clean environment has many implications for the
functioning of democracy and the emerging system of governance
in India. The increasing incidence of judicial activism reflects the
growing insensitivity of government to the problems of those who
do not have strong political voice. It also reflects the inability of
the institutional processes to resolve conflicts in society. More
and more groups that do not have organised strength to influence
political decisions are taking recourse to judicial processes to get
their grievances redressed. The perception that political decision
making works on partisan interests and that the judicial process
is neutral and transparent has grown over the years. Courts have
begun filling policy gaps and stepping in where powerful groups in
society cannot be contained through political methods. The land
mafia, polluting industries and transport lobby could be ordered
only by Courts to adhere to laws and thus work for a clean Delhi.
In this process, new policy directions have emerged that encourage
the government to legislate appropriate policies. This has in some
ways devalued political institutions because people welcome courts
intervention even in areas that strictly fall in the domain of the
executive or the legislature.
In the environmental sector, the government probably finds it
convenient for the Court to find solutions to social conflicts that
it cannot easily handle. If the conflict persists, then it has an alibi
to escape responsibility. The risk is that the role of the Court may
become devalued if there is accumulation of decisions that find partial
implementation or that legitimately belong to the political realm and 27
b at t l i n g f o r c l e a n e n v i ro n m e n t

have less to do with legal interpretations. Ironically, de-politicization

of an issue by the Court may lead to its own politicization.

References
Agarwal, Anil. 2001. Smell the Air, Minister, Indian Express, 20 August
Bandyopadhyay, Jayanta. 2002. Between Local and Global Responsibilities.
Seminar (51), August
Bhagwati, PN. 2002. A Seminal Judgment. Down to Earth, 10, 24, May 15,
p. 50
Bjorkman, J.W. and Kuldeep Mathur. 2002. Policy Technology and Development:
Human Capital Policies in the Netherlands and India. New Delhi: Manohar.
Centre for Science and Environment. 1996. Slow Murder The Deadly Story of
Vehicular Pollution in India (A Study directed by Anil Agarwal and written
by Anju Sharma and Anumita Roy Chowdhry). New Delhi: CSE
Chatterjee, Partha. 1997. Development Planning and the Indian State in
Chatterjee, Partha. 1997. (ed.) State and Politics in India. Delhi: Oxford
University Press, pp. 271298
Down to Earth. 2001 and 2002. (Science and Environment Fortnightly) vols
9 and 10
Environment Pollution Authority for the National Capital Region. 1998.
Report on Monitoring and Priority Measures Proposed by the Authority for Air
Pollution and Control. New Delhi: Government of India
Environment Pollution Authority for the National Capital Region. 2001.
Twelfth Progress Report June-July 2001. New Delhi: Government of India,
August
Fischer, Frank and John Forrester, eds. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy
Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 2242
Fischer, Frank. 1993. Policy Discourse and the Politics of Washington Think
Tanks in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Fischer, Frank. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local
Knowledge, Durham and London: Duke University Press
Government of India. 1998. The Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II, Section
3, Subsection 2. New Delhi: Government of India Press
Government of India. 2001. Interim Report of the Expert Committee on Auto Fuel
Policy (Chairman: Dr. R.A. Mashelkar). New Delhi, 28 December
28
 ku l d e e p m at h u r

Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse Ecological

Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Khilnani, Sunil. 1997. The Idea of India. London: Hamish Hamilton
Mathur, Kuldeep. 1995. Politics and Implementation of Integrated Rural
Development Programmes. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 & 42, pp.
270308
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. Asian Drama.
Narain, Sunita. 2002. Changing Environmentalism. Seminar, August, 51
Pachauri. RK. 2001. Clearing the Air: Many Roadblocks on the CNG Route,
Times of India, September 1
Sathe, SP. 2002. Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing
Limits. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Sethi, Harsh. 2002. The Problem in Seminar (51) in its issue entitled The
Shades of Green, August
Singh, Amita. 2000. The Politics of Environmental Administration. Delhi: Golgotia
Publishers
Stone, Diane, et.al. 2001. Bridging Research and Policy, Paper presented at the
International Workshop, Warwick University, 1617 July
Mohan, Dinesh, (2001) Press Interview: IIT Research Drills Holes into Clean
CNG Theory. Times of India, 17 August p.3
Vohra, Pankaj. 2001. CNG Fiasco: Chief Minister Backtracks as Problem
Worsens, The Hindustan Times, April 15
Weaver, Kent and Paul Stares, eds. 2001. Guidance for Governance Comparing
Alternative Sources of Public Advice, Tokyo: Japan Centre for International
Exchange

29
Design & printing: PublishInc. ([email protected])

JNU