Delhi Air Pollution|Apex Court Declines To Interfere With School Closure Order; Modifies Direction To Protect BS-IV & Newer Vehicles

The Supreme Court, while hearing the plea related to the crisis of Air pollution in the Delhi-NCR Region, has refused to interfere with the direction for closure of schools.

The Bench also modified its last order dated August 12, 2025 and ordered that no adverse steps be taken against the owners of BS-IV or higher category vehicles.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, “Issue notice. We have heard Senior Counsels with respect to the directions for closure of schools and holding the school online in light of the Delhi Pollution...Since the winter break starts from next week, therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the decision of the authorities…The air pollution crisis has become an annual feature; a long-term plan needs to be evolved and given effect to. The CAQM being the expert body, is requested to revisit the long-term measures: cleaner urban industry and energy industry and energy; stubble burning; modes and manner of incentivising farmers to stop stubble burning; construction activities; regulation of provisions of alternative employment for the construction workers; solution of the pollution generating from household activity; identification of pockets which can be used to increase green cover; citizen awakening programmes; and voluntary giving up of activities which contribute directly or indirectly to air pollution...The Schools are to be run on a hybrid basis."

The Court also ordered, "After hearing the Ld. ASG, the order dated 12.05.2025, para 2, is modified to the extent that no coercive steps shall be taken against the owners of the vehicles of BS-IV and newer on the ground that they are ten years old (in case of diesel engines) and 15 years (in case of petrol engines).

The NHAI was also directed to examine the feasibility of relocating the nine MCD-operated toll booths to sites managed by the NHAI. Under this arrangement, a portion of the revenue collected would be diverted to the MCD to offset losses incurred during the suspension period. Simultaneously, the MCD is instructed to prioritize this matter and consider a temporary suspension of operations at these nine plazas. It was directed that a formal decision must be reached within one week, placed on record, and shared with all relevant parties.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing to challenge the notification mandating the closure of primary schools and the shift to online learning, submitted that by shutting down these institutions, the state is effectively terminating essential midday meals for underprivileged children. She said that the low-income parents who must continue working on the streets and in parking lots, for them, the air quality at home is no better than in a classroom.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "This is an extreme example. Suppose you allow a hybrid system and parents who both work they will send the child to school, then what?... Courts cannot become super specialists here. You want us to opine that going and coming back from school is not at all problematic."

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared on behalf of the parents seeking a hybrid learning model. The Bench remarked that such an option could foster discrimination, noting that "those who can afford digital devices will safeguard themselves, while those who cannot will remain exposed."

In response, Luthra argued that public reluctance to commute generally peaks before noon due to high pollution levels, whereas school children are forced to leave their homes in the early morning hours when air quality is often at its worst.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Delhi Government, requested a modification of the order dated August 12, 2025 and submitted, "Let the coercive steps be confined upto BS-III vehicles. Because the order said no coercive steps for older vehicles, we are not able to go behind BS-I, BS-II vehicles. That regime is older...What we are asking is up to BS-III, their emissions are very poor, and they are adding to the vehicular pollution ."

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae, submitted "Till BS-III should be excluded as BS-IV came in 2010, and BS-III models are before that."

Background

On December 3, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the concerning the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi–National Capital Region, saying the issue needed to be monitored on a regular basis.

On November 19, the court asked the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to consider directing schools in Delhi-NCR to postpone open-air sports events scheduled for November–December to “safer months” due to toxic air levels.

It had declined to impose year-round restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), an emergency framework that restricts polluting activities in severe conditions, and instead emphasised the need for long-term, sustainable solutions.

The Court has previously refused to entertain a fresh PIL by a wellness expert seeking urgent judicial intervention to tackle a "persistent and systemic failure" in addressing the country's rising air pollution levels. The Apex Court, however, allowed holistic health coach Luke Christopher Coutinho to withdraw the PIL and file an intervention plea in a pending case filed by environmentalist M C Mehta on pollution.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed on January 6, 2025.

Cause Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India [WP (C) 13029/1985]