Law Notify : The Bombay High Court has sharply criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for their continued failure to effectively address deteriorating air quality in Mumbai and surrounding regions, warning that coercive action, including suspension of salaries of senior officials, may follow if compliance does not improve.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam observed that despite a comprehensive statutory framework under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, civic authorities had shown a clear lack of sustained and proactive enforcement. The Court noted that meaningful regulatory action appeared to have commenced only after judicial intervention.
The Bench expressed particular displeasure with the conduct of the NMMC Commissioner, who failed to comply with a prior direction to file a personal affidavit and instead delegated the task to a subordinate officer. The Court found this non-compliance, as well as the contents of the affidavit ultimately filed, to be unsatisfactory, describing the approach as indicative of deliberate disregard for judicial orders. In this context, the Court formally recorded its prima facie view that the NMMC Commissioner could be restrained from drawing salary until further orders.
While hearing a suo motu public interest matter on air pollution, the Court reviewed a status report submitted by the BMC and remarked that enforcement measures lacked consistency and appeared reactive rather than preventive. It reiterated that environmental governance is not optional but flows from binding constitutional and statutory obligations, particularly under Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution.
Referring to established precedents such as MC Mehta v Union of India and Vardhaman Kaushik v Union of India, the Bench clarified that the judiciary does not seek to micro-manage executive functions. However, it remains duty-bound to ensure faithful discharge of responsibilities that directly impact fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment.
The Court rejected submissions that the recent issuance of hundreds of show-cause notices to construction sites was sufficient, holding that sporadic action could not replace continuous regulatory vigilance. Enforcement of pollution control norms, the Bench stressed, is a mandatory obligation, and failure to do so may attract personal consequences for officers in charge.
Intervening parties and public interest organisations pressed for fixation of individual officer liability and imposition of exemplary costs, citing recent judicial recognition of personal accountability of civic officials in matters affecting public safety. They highlighted the serious public health impact of unchecked air pollution, particularly on children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups, and pointed out that several air quality monitoring stations remained non-functional or disconnected from centralised data systems.
The Amicus Curiae informed the Court that many construction sites continued operations without installing mandatory sensor-based air quality monitoring systems, while others failed to integrate their data with the central monitoring platform, in clear violation of regulatory directions and environmental clearances.
The Bench also expressed concern over inconsistencies between air quality readings recorded during major public events and data officially reported by civic authorities, underscoring the need for a transparent, scientifically robust, and independently verifiable monitoring mechanism. It cautioned against institutional complacency, noting that air pollution constitutes a continuing environmental wrong with long-term social and economic consequences.
Directing the civic bodies and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to place before it a concrete, enforceable, and time-bound action plan, the Court warned that mere status reports would no longer be accepted. It indicated that deterrent financial penalties, potentially ranging from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 5 crore, could be imposed on habitual violators, particularly in the construction sector, if existing statutory powers proved inadequate.
The Bench emphasised that in environmental and socio-economic offences, deterrence is a critical regulatory tool and that non-compliance must not become economically beneficial. Clarifying its position later in the day, the Court stated that the proposal to withhold salaries had been formally recorded and would not be withdrawn, adding that similar consequences could extend to the BMC Commissioner if lapses continued.
While refraining from immediate enforcement, the Court made it clear that the matter would be taken up decisively at the next hearing, scheduled for January 27. It concluded by reiterating that environmental protection is a constitutional imperative, not a matter of administrative convenience, and requires urgent, coordinated, and accountable action from all statutory authorities concerned.
