The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) over their failure to tackle the rising air pollution levels in Mumbai and its surrounding areas, indicating that coercive directions, including suspension of salaries of the respective Municipal Commissioners, may follow if compliance remains deficient.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam on Friday noted a conspicuous absence of bona fide, sustained, and proactive enforcement measures by the civic authorities, despite the existence of a robust statutory framework under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; and binding directions issued by constitutional courts.
It expressed particular dissatisfaction with the conduct of the NMMC Commissioner, who failed to comply with an earlier judicial direction requiring the filing of a personal affidavit and instead delegated the task to a city engineer.
The High Court found both the non-compliance and the contents of the substituted affidavit unsatisfactory, characterising the approach as indicative of a deliberate and contumacious disregard for judicial orders. In this backdrop, it formally recorded its prima facie intention to direct that the NMMC Commissioner be restrained from drawing salary until further orders, underscoring the principle that accountability in matters affecting fundamental rights could not be diluted through bureaucratic evasiveness.
While hearing a suo motu public interest proceeding related to air quality in Mumbai, the High Court perused a status report submitted on behalf of the BMC, which concluded that regulatory action appeared to have been triggered only after judicial intervention.
The Court emphasised that environmental governance, particularly in relation to air quality management, flows from a non-derogable statutory duty under Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution, as consistently recognised in precedents such as MC Mehta v Union of India and Vardhaman Kaushik v Union of India. The Bench reiterated that the judiciary’s role is not to micro-manage executive functions, but to ensure faithful discharge of constitutional and statutory obligations.
In response to submissions that several hundred show-cause notices had recently been issued to construction sites for non-compliance with prescribed pollution-mitigation protocols, including the 28-point guidelines, the Court held that reactive enforcement cannot substitute sustained regulatory vigilance. It observed that enforcement of environmental norms is not discretionary largesse but a mandatory obligation, failure of which may attract personal consequences for officers in charge.
The Court also heard submissions from intervening parties and public-spirited organisations, who urged the fixing of individual officer liability and imposition of exemplary costs. Reliance was placed on a recent coordinate Bench ruling concerning urban potholes, wherein personal accountability of civic officers was judicially recognised.
The intervenors highlighted the adverse public health implications of unchecked air pollution, particularly for children, senior citizens, and vulnerable populations, noting that monitoring infrastructure itself remained partially non-functional, with several stations not integrated into the centralised data dashboard.
The Amicus Curiae apprised the Bench that a substantial number of construction sites continued operations without installing mandatory sensor-based air quality monitoring systems, while several others remained disconnected from the central monitoring platform, in clear breach of regulatory directives and environmental clearances.
The Bench expressed concern over discrepancies between air quality data recorded during major public events and the figures officially reported by civic authorities, underscoring the urgent need for a scientifically credible, transparent, and independently verifiable monitoring mechanism. It also cautioned against institutional complacency, noting that air pollution constitutes a continuing environmental wrong with long-term socio-economic consequences.
The Court directed the civic bodies and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to place before it a concrete, enforceable, and time-bound action plan, warning that mere filing of status reports would no longer suffice. It further indicated that statutory and quasi-judicial powers should be augmented, if necessary through court-sanctioned measures, to impose deterrent financial penalties ranging from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 5 crore, particularly against habitual violators in the construction sector.
The Division Bench observed that in socio-economic and environmental offences, deterrence operated as a critical regulatory tool, reinforcing the principle that non-compliance must not be economically advantageous. It clarified post-lunch that the proposal to withhold salaries had been formally recorded and would not be withdrawn, cautioning that similar consequences could extend to the BMC Commissioner as well.
While stopping short of immediate enforcement, the Bench made it clear that the issue would be decisively considered at the next hearing and listed the matter for detailed consideration on January 27. The High Court reiterated that environmental protection was not a matter of administrative convenience but a constitutional imperative, requiring urgent, coordinated, and accountable action from all statutory authorities concerned.
The post Mumbai air pollution: Bombay High Court warns of coercive action, hints salary freeze for civic chiefs appeared first on India Legal.