During the proceedings of a suo moto PIL addressing air pollution in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court observed that numerous violations of air pollution regulations are evident to anyone traversing the city.

The High Court's observation underscored that while policymakers and experts are diligently performing their duties, there remains a glaring deficiency in the implementation of measures aimed at mitigating air pollution in Mumbai.

“A lot depends on your pollution audit. Mr Advocate General, we feel that at least for the Bombay Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) you need to have a statutory commission. For the court, it becomes very difficult. The constitution should be such that experts, administrators, activists etc are included. What we find is, that experts and policymakers are doing a good job but it’s the implementation that causes pain. BMC’s report should have been implemented. It is very common knowledge that if you roam around in Mumbai you can find so many violations. Once you carry your own report and see,” the court said.

The division bench of the High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Girish Kulkarni, presided over the hearing of the suo moto Public Interest Litigation, prompted by the deteriorating air quality in Mumbai.

Previously, the High Court had directed a collaborative inspection of seven significant public project sites by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). Subsequent to the inspection, both authorities were instructed to devise a comprehensive roadmap aimed at mitigating air pollution.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the State Government, apprised the High Court that a coordination committee meeting involving the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) was convened on March 1, chaired by the BMC commissioner.

He further added that directives were issued under the Environment Protection Act of 1986 to municipal commissioners, corporations, municipal councils, the transport commissioner, and the Mumbai traffic police for the monitoring of air pollution.

The Advocate General submitted that additional staff was necessary to conduct the environmental audit. It was highlighted that industries were categorized into red, orange, green, and white according to the Central Government Guidelines.

Consequently, he assured the court that the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board would commence the audit of red-category industries until an additional 1310 staff are sanctioned by the State Government.

The High Court also directed the state government to expedite the decision regarding the appointment of additional staff. The bench emphasized that in light of the forthcoming parliamentary elections, if needed, appropriate permission could be sought from the Election Commission for the appointment of additional staff, taking into account the broader public interest and humanitarian concerns.

Senior Advocate Darius Kambatta, acting as amicus curiae, highlighted that another report presented by experts from IIT Bombay and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) recommends source apportionment as a long-term strategy to mitigate air pollution.

Previously, the High Court had constituted an expert committee comprising a representative from IIT Bombay, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), and the Principal Secretary of the State Government. Now, the High Court has directed the expert committee to furnish its opinion on the matter concerning source apportionment of air pollution during the next hearing. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for the suo moto PIL on June 20 at 3:30 PM.