By Vickram Kilpady
Long before winter smog became the defining image of Delhi’s air crisis, a single public interest litigation (PIL) transformed how India confronted pollution. In 1985, environmental lawyer MC Mehta filed a petition against the Union of India, alleging that rising vehicular and industrial emissions in Delhi violated citizens’ right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
At the time, there was no dedicated environmental court or regulatory mechanism capable of sustained oversight. Institutions such as the National Green Tribunal would only emerge decades later. In that institutional vacuum, the Supreme Court stepped in—turning a single writ petition into one of the longest-running environmental litigations in the country’s history.
This month, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, suggested the case finally be closed. The judges noted that keeping a 1985 case open reflected poorly on the justice system, especially after it was cited in the Lok Sabha earlier this month as one of the oldest pending PILs before the Court.
The specific issues related to air pollution in the National Capital Region will continue under a separate suo motu case, but the original petition will no longer carry the burden of four decades.
WHEN DELHI’S AIR WAS UNBEARABLE
To younger generations, the scale of Delhi’s pollution in the 1980s and 1990s can be difficult to imagine. At traffic junctions such as ITO and Ashram, diesel buses idling at signals produced fumes so dense that pedestrians’ eyes watered as traffic lights turned green. Alongside them ran the infamous “phat-phatiyas”—motorcycle taxis powered by refurbished Harley Davidson engines originally used during World War II.
Delhi’s public transport system ran almost entirely on diesel. The resulting pollution formed the basis of Mehta’s plea: that unchecked emissions were undermining the constitutional right to life.
One of the most transformative outcomes of the litigation was the Supreme Court’s directive to convert Delhi’s public transport fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG). Despite repeated delays and criticism from the Court, the government led by then chief minister Sheila Dikshit eventually completed the transition in 2001, marking one of the most dramatic urban environmental reforms in India.
The move drastically reduced particulate emissions from buses and auto-rickshaws and eliminated heavily polluting vehicles such as the phat-phatiyas from the city’s roads.
A TURNING POINT IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The case gained momentum in 1985 following an industrial accident—the Oleum gas leak in Punjabi Bagh—which occurred soon after the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy. These incidents forced the Supreme Court to rethink how environmental damage should be addressed and monitored.
Instead of issuing a single judgment and closing the matter, the Court adopted what became known as the continuing mandamus—a mechanism allowing the judiciary to keep a case open and periodically review compliance with its orders.
Over time, this approach reshaped environmental jurisprudence in India. It was later used in landmark litigations such as the Jain Hawala case and the long-running forest conservation case led by TN Godavarman Thirumulpad.
Through the same petition, Mehta also raised other major environmental issues, including pollution threatening the Taj Mahal and contamination of the Ganga River.
THE GAINS—AND THE LIMITS
Some 25 years after Delhi’s shift to CNG, the city once again struggles with hazardous air. The gains achieved through cleaner public transport have been offset by the explosive growth of private vehicles running on petrol and diesel. Seasonal stubble burning in neighbouring states, winter weather patterns, and Delhi’s basin-like topography compound the problem, producing the thick smog that now engulfs the region every winter.
Another major intervention arising from Mehta’s litigation was the Court-ordered sealing of factories, shops and offices operating illegally in residential zones defined under the Delhi Master Plan. While urban planners hailed the move as essential for orderly development, it also displaced thousands of small industrial units and workers to distant industrial estates—an outcome that remains controversial.
A DEBATE OVER JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The case also shaped India’s PIL culture. In the 1990s, PILs became a powerful tool to bring social and environmental concerns before the courts.
In recent years, however, many judges have expressed concern that PILs are increasingly misused for publicity or to harass opponents, leading to stricter scrutiny by courts.
Mehta himself has questioned the reasoning behind closing the case simply because of its age. The Court, he argued, kept it open precisely to monitor compliance and safeguard the health of millions.
While critics have accused the judiciary of intruding into executive functions, the interventions produced tangible results—from cleaner fuels to stricter environmental oversight.
Yet, Mehta remains critical of the government’s enforcement machinery. Despite the creation of the National Green Tribunal in 2010, he argues that the number of benches and the scale of environmental enforcement remain inadequate. “The courts have done their part,” he said after the order. “The problem lies in implementation”.
WEAKENED SAFEGUARDS?
India continues to grapple with environmental challenges ranging from industrial pollution to deforestation. The debate has intensified after the Supreme Court allowed post-facto environmental clearances in exceptional cases, a ruling that many activists believe weakens environmental safeguards.
As the curtain falls on the original 1985 petition, the legacy of the case remains undeniable. It established that environmental protection could be anchored in the constitutional right to life—and that courts could step in when regulatory systems failed.
For Delhi, the case marked the beginning of its long and unfinished struggle for clean air.
The post The Case That Cleaned A City: Curtains Fall on MC Mehta’s 41-Year Pollution Battle appeared first on India Legal.