Automobile

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking ‘one person one car’

Vehicular emissions contribute to a good chunk of air pollution in India and as the situation worsens policy measures are also enacted to control it like the Delhi government’s famous Odd-Even policy. Supreme Court on Friday came across a petition targeting the same issue which seeked enforcement of the “one car one person” norm. The PIL also asked to impose an environmental tax on every second vehicle a person purchases.

The apex court rejected the petition saying that the court cannot intervene in such matters. “We cannot issue these kind of directions — allow one car one person, ensure effective tax, the second car to have environment tax, commission for air pollution. This is a matter of policy,” a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

Also ReadNew rules for social media influencers

Sanjay Kulshreshtra, founder of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Tsunami on Roads pointed the court’s direction towards the burgeoning volume of vehicles on roads which according to his petition was creating huge environmental crises.

Kulshreshtra added that limiting the purchase of cars by a person and imposing environmental tax on every second car will help in controlling vehicular pollution.

The petitioner submitted that more than 3 million cars were sold in 2021. “See the kind of cars being purchased. This does not match up with the number of taxpayers in the country,” he said.

“We cannot enter into every area where there is concern of governance. We are here to solve legal issues. Your petition is bonafide but we cannot enter into issues relating to environmental policy,” Justice PS Narasimha, told the petitioner.

Also Read WhatsApp may soon bring this ‘much-awaited’ feature

“The revenue side of the government is trying to keep pace with taxpayers. We do not have to come to their aid. They are doing their effort,” the bench said.

“The petitioner will be at liberty to pursue his grievance as per the remedies available under law,” the court said while declining to interfere in the matter.

Source :
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top