Focus on pollution test, not vehicles’age

Recently, the Delhi High Court stayed the scrapping of a car seized from private property without notice.

Delhi’s now-withdrawn rule denying fuel to end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) — diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol ones older than 15 — reflected an intent to tackle the city’s air pollution problem. The rule was rooted in a 2015 National Green Tribunal (NGT) order, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, this age-based approach, applied without considering a vehicle’s actual condition or emission levels, raises legal and environmental questions, while placing an undue burden on responsible vehicle owners.

A Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate is recognised as a legal indicator of emissions compliance. (Archives/ HT PHOTO)

Recently, the Delhi High Court stayed the scrapping of a car seized from private property without notice. The case highlighted a growing concern: citizens losing well-maintained, emission-compliant vehicles due to an arbitrary age threshold. A Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate, recognised as a legal indicator of emissions compliance, should carry weight in such decisions. If a vehicle consistently passes PUC tests, forcibly removing it undermines public trust in regulatory systems.

That said, the PUC system itself must be beyond reproach.

It is widely acknowledged that corruption and lax enforcement plague many pollution-testing centres, leading to fraudulent certification that defeats the very purpose of environmental regulation. The government must have zero tolerance for such malpractice. There must be rigorous oversight, digital verification, real-time data audits, and penalties for issuing false certificates. If the state wishes to establish PUCs as a pillar of its vehicle policy, then the system must be transparent, tamper-proof, and trustworthy.

The broader flaw in the current approach is over-reliance on age as a proxy for pollution, while ignoring more systemic interventions. A rarely driven car owned by an elderly couple, for instance, may pollute far less than a newer vehicle idling in traffic daily. The issue isn’t just what cars we drive, but how many are on the road, how long they run, and whether our cities are designed to reduce car dependency.

Instead of scrapping functional vehicles to push new purchases, policy should focus on reducing overall car usage. Measures could include congestion pricing, low-emission zones, higher parking fees, and strict enforcement of no-parking zones in residential and commercial areas. London, for example, significantly improved air quality through its Congestion Charge and Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which deter private vehicles in the city centre. Similarly, Beijing uses licence plate lotteries, driving restrictions, and harsh penalties for illegal parking. Germany, France, and Japan employ emissions-based health checks or age-linked incentives — not blanket bans in the absence of robust alternatives.

Delhi must shift from reactive to proactive planning.

Expanding and investing in clean, reliable public transport is critical. So is pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Urban planning that favours the car over the commuter will always result in congestion and pollution, no matter how new vehicles are.

Investing in clean, reliable public transport is critical, as is pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Urban planning that prioritises cars over people will inevitably lead to congestion and pollution, regardless of vehicle age.

So, while the goal of cleaner air is shared by all, the method of achieving it must be rooted in science (not one random study), equity, and long-term urban sustainability. Real solutions lie in reducing dependency on private cars altogether – not arbitrary age thresholds.

Bhavreen Kandhari is an advocate for environmental rights. The views expressed are personal.