[srishiva]

Originally Posted by alpha1

The issue is that the judiciary retains the right to INTERPRET the LAW.



Actually not. In this case, there was a PIL filed in the courts, which said that since there is a LAW which states that nothing can be stuck on the glass windows of a vehicle, how/why is the Govt not enforcing that rule.
जज भी हम ही और जल्लाद भी हम ही

As far as the sunfilm issue, there is no law about sticking something (ofcourse you cant stick something opaque, but sticking just to sunfilms here) The reason was that law enforcement does not have enough light meters. Hence they put a blanket ban.

The executive should have been held accountable for not enforcing the law about light transparency like now they are doing threatening to arrest chief secretaries.

There are lots of things for which they could arrest bureaucrats and politicians since they are not fulfilling their obligations instead of what they are doing.

[TD_GHY]

Originally Posted by Ragavsr

30 years of experience in dealing murder and property disputes won't make them experts in environmental laws.

You my dear have not tried to go through the Act which specifies who members of NGT should be.

Chairperson and Members of NGT

• It has a full time chairperson and following members:
  
• At least 10 and maximum 20 Full time Judicial members
  
• At least 10 and maximum 20 Full time Expert Members
  
  Qualification for Chairperson
  
• The person should have been either a Judge of India’s Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court in India.
  
  Qualification for Judicial member
  
• A Judge of Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice of High Court, Judge of a High Court
  
  Qualification for Expert members
  
• Either a degree in Master of Science (in physical sciences or life sciences) with a Doctorate degree or Master of Engineering or Master of Technology Or an experience of fifteen years in the relevant field and administrative experience of fifteen years in Central or a State Government or in a reputed National or State level institution.

The existing laws clearly define the pollution limits regardless of cubic capacity of engines.

There are different sources of law in India.

The main sources of law in India are the Constitution, statutes (legislation), customary law and case law. Statutes are enacted by Parliament, State legislatures and Union Territory legislatures. Besides, there is a vast body of laws known as subordinate legislation in the form of rules, regulations as well as bye-laws made by Central/State governments and local authorities like municipal corporations, municipalities, gram panchayats and other local bodies. This subordinate legislation is made under the authority conferred or delegated either by Parliament or State or Union Territory legislatures concerned. Judicial decisions of superior courts like Supreme Court and High Courts are important sources of law. Decisions of Supreme Court are binding on all courts within the territory of India.

If any court bans something, the Parliament can negate it through further legislation to that effect. Until then, the decision by Judiciary remains.

Banning engines above a particular capacity is not an interpretation of an existing laws but a new law in itself which the NGT doesn't have any right to enact.

The court only has the right to ban vehicles which violate existing pollution norms.

In case the court is not satisfied with existing pollution norms, it can suggest the government to frame new laws. Full stop.

Refer above point.

When the court itself is abusing the laws of the country, why shouldn't I abuse them. Not to mention the rampant corruption in the judiciary.

You should criticize, not abuse. Know the difference.

Sadly, today Indians know how to read and write English but not understand the difference between criticism and abuse. Abusing anyone and anybody for things beyond one's cognitive capabilities has become the fashion it seems.

When there are laws to protect the PM or President from verbal abuse or criticism, why the court have that privilege. The government should strike down the contempt of court laws that exist.

There are ongoing debates (not abuses) on this. Hopefully there will be certain changes in the Contempt of Court rules as times progress.

[motorheart]

But arresting chief secretaries ? dont you think it is little hasty decision? NGT is really creating an anarchy by bypassing all the established systems and rules...

What wrong did the manufacturers do ? They adhered to you existing laws, they were never given time or notice...Who will compensate for the loss in Business? They are selling cars which are legally allowed by the law of the land and some of them who are having better emission standards than many of the cars below 2K cc...

Not sure where the world is going...I seriously feel this is being created just to create a hype....

[Epic]

I am a hardcore petrol head but I have never been able to understand this decision of banning diesel engine vehicles in order to control the pollution issue.

I am pretty sure that diesel engines of today are more refined and less polluting than the diesel engines of the past. This being the scenario, I believe it is more important to keep a check and control of the pollution levels of cars having diesel as well as petrol engines which are older than say 10 years. I am sure they will be more polluting than a brand new car.

This being said, the biggest defaulters are trucks and buses. Not only are they polluting but they also flout the safety norms with rash driving, speeding and driving without required lights at night.

[chakky]

Originally Posted by Epic

I am a hardcore petrol head but I have never been able to understand this decision of banning diesel engine vehicles in order to control the pollution issue.

I am pretty sure that diesel engines of today are more refined and less polluting than the diesel engines of the past. This being the scenario, I believe it is more important to keep a check and control of the pollution levels of cars having diesel as well as petrol engines which are older than say 10 years. I am sure they will be more polluting than a brand new car.

This being said, the biggest defaulters are trucks and buses. Not only are they polluting but they also flout the safety norms with rash driving, speeding and driving without required lights at night.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...any-sense.html

You should read this post, it concludes..

Conclusion
Engine size has little role to play in NOx and PM emissions. Emissions are dependent more upon engine design, and high power versions of smaller engines pollute much more. If NGT is serious about PM emissions, they should ban all vehicles without DPF fitted. This would get all small diesel cars banned in India. Only Luxury 2000c+ SUVs can be sold.

As for as NOx+THC is concerned, NGT can ask ARAI to test all new cars and ban those found in the upper end of the range. However, Euro IV cars will be far less polluting than the Euro 3 or Euro 2.

An expert view that just states the obvious which NGT seems blind.

Add to this news,

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...cle8647913.ece


Contrary to popular perception that air pollution is going up in the State, two of the major air pollution parameters — nitrogen dioxide from vehicle emissions and sulphur dioxide from industrial emissions — were well within the permissible limits in the State during the past five years.


You keep wondering why this inordinate haste and unilateral action by someone who should be discussing with respective shareholders and the common man before creating a road map...

Maybe he has gotten the attention to make him famous, but end of the day it still shows a lot of one man show where even the experts if there are any, in their panel toeing the line of the chairperson.

It explains why he is running around and giving the verdicts like as if there is no one else in the entire NGT...

[scuderiamania]

Assuming that the ban does go through, what are the owners of diesel cars suppose to do when the car reaches the ten year mark? Are we expected to just park it near a dump and let it rust away?

Ours is a 08 swift ddis which has hardly done 30K and still scores a 'A' in the PUC test. Since our use is very less, we have no intensions of buying a new car.

[sdp1975]

Delhi was brought to almost a standstill by the cabbies and the Supreme Court had to go back on it's order banning diesel cabs. Now, a strike on June 15 across Kerala against the NGT order.

http://english.manoramaonline.com/ne...medium=twitter

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by srishiva

As far as the sunfilm issue, there is no law about sticking something (ofcourse you cant stick something opaque, but sticking just to sunfilms here) The reason was that law enforcement does not have enough light meters. Hence they put a blanket ban.

The executive should have been held accountable for not enforcing the law about light transparency like now they are doing threatening to arrest chief secretaries.

There are lots of things for which they could arrest bureaucrats and politicians since they are not fulfilling their obligations instead of what they are doing.

http://cja.gov.in/Will/blackfilms.pdf
Lets examine what the Supreme court said about it:

A device called luxometer can measure the level of
opaqueness in windows owing to the application of black films
but this device is a scarce resource and is very scantily
available with the police personnel in India

Corroborates with what you said. But lets hang on a moment

Section 190 of the Act provides that any
person who drives or causes or allows to be driven in any
public place a motor vehicle or a trailer which has any defect,
or violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety,
or violates the provisions of the Act or the Rules made therein,
is punishable as per the provisions of the Act. In other words,
alteration to the conditions of the vehicle in a manner
contravening the Act is not permissible in law.

Section 52 of the Act declares that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter
the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
registration are at variance with those originally specified by
the manufacturer.

Rule 100 provides for glass of windscreen and windows of
every motor vehicle. The glass used has to be ‘safety glass’.
Then it provides for the inner surface angle on the windscreen.
Rule 100 (2) provides that the glass of the windscreen and rear
window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be
maintained in such a condition that VLT is not less than 70
per cent and on side windows not less than 50 per cent and
would conform to Indian Standards [IS:2553-Part2-1992]

In face of the language of the Rule, we cannot grant the
petitioner the relief prayed for, that there should be 100 per
cent VLT. This Court cannot issue directions that vehicles
should have glasses with 100 per cent VLT. Rule 100 of the
Rules is a valid piece of legislation and is on the statute book.
Once such provision exists, this Court cannot issue directions
contrary to the provision of law. Thus, we decline to grant
this prayer to the petitioner.

Judicial activism? On the contrary the court clearly says it CANNOT issue directives contrary to the Statutes!

However, the prayer relating to issuance of directions
prohibiting use of black films on the glasses of vehicles
certainly has merit ...
... Two scenarios must be examined. First, if the glass so
manufactured already has the VLT as specified, then the
question of further reducing it by any means shall be in clear
violation of Rule 100 as well as the prescribed IS. Secondly,
the rule requires a manufacturer to manufacture the vehicles
with safety glasses with prescribed VLT. It is the minimum
percentage that has been specified. The manufacturer may
manufacture vehicle with a higher VLT to the prescribed limit
or even a vehicle with tinted glasses, if such glasses do not fall
short of the minimum prescribed VLT in terms of Rule 100.
None can be permitted to create his own device to bring down
the percentage of the VLT thereafter. Thus, on the plain
reading of the Rule and the IS standards, use of black films of
any density is impermissible.

So the judgement was VERY clearly not based on the unavailability of the lux meters for checking the VLT of each vehicle BUT the interpretation of the law that clearly states that no changes can be made after the vehicle "passing" certification and registration.

[srishiva]

Not sure about the statement that engine size doesn't matter regards to pollution. If the engine designs are same with different cubic capacities, the higher cubic engine will pollute more.

What should matter is the standards and whether a particular engine conforms to that. It was found in EU that cars emitted 4 times the pollutants compared to buses and trucks. Emission standards are not adhered to in real world conditions. All these require first a good standard and testing standards.

[chakky]

I was once filling diesel at my regular HP pump when I saw a lot of migrant labor force taking diesel. I was just curious and on asking they informed these days they prefer diesel over lpg due to ready availability and there are stoves using this fuel..

Diesel burnt in this way is much harmful and I do not know the large scale impact of such activities...it just clicked now when I was reading about the harmful nature of a diesel burning and how it releases a lot more damaging gases when catalytic converters, dpf etc are not there in vehicles. Even petrol exhausts have the same issue if there were no catalytic converters.

[silversteed]

Originally Posted by Epic

This being said, the biggest defaulters are trucks and buses. Not only are they polluting but they also flout the safety norms with rash driving, speeding and driving without required lights at night.

Let's keep aside the speeding and rash driving for now. A bus that conforms to BS-IV norms and a diesel car conforming to BS-IV norms would both have Emission signatures that are within the limits set down in the standard. A bus, to its advantage carries 40 or more people, while a car can legally carry only 5 (talking about a hatchback owned by a middle-class family). The values of NOx/km/person and PM/km/person would be greatly tilted in favour of the former. The solution is not any knee-jerk reactions such as this blanket ban on vehicles with an engine displacement of 2000cc or above, but comprehensive and fool-proof periodic emission and fitness tests which these days are only namesake.

Originally Posted by srishiva

Not sure about the statement that engine size doesn't matter regards to pollution. If the engine designs are same with different cubic capacities, the higher cubic engine will pollute more.

A bigger engine displacement need not necessarily mean it is more polluting, this has been discussed in another thread. Engine designs can remain the same, but the way they're tuned affects the emissions. Other components such as the Catcon, DPF etc also play a role in reducing emissions.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by silversteed

Let's keep aside the speeding and rash driving for now. A bus that conforms to BS-IV norms and a diesel car conforming to BS-IV norms would both have Emission signatures that are within the limits set down in the standard. A bus, to its advantage carries 40 or more people, while a car can legally carry only 5 (talking about a hatchback owned by a middle-class family). The values of NOx/km/person and PM/km/person would be greatly tilted in favour of the former. The solution is not any knee-jerk reactions such as this blanket ban on vehicles with an engine displacement of 2000cc or above, but comprehensive and fool-proof periodic emission and fitness tests which these days are only namesake.


A bigger engine displacement need not necessarily mean it is more polluting, this has been discussed in another thread. Engine designs can remain the same, but the way they're tuned affects the emissions. Other components such as the Catcon, DPF etc also play a role in reducing emissions.

The thing is neither of us can categorically state one way or other.

[thoma]

Originally Posted by darklord

Diesel vehicles over 10 years of age with engine capacity exceeding 2000 cc to be withdrawn within a month.

I was thinking the above way till I saw the order today. It is not diesel vehicles over 10 years with capacity exceeding 2000 cc, but ALL diesel vehicles over 10 years irrespective of engine capacity.

[Rahul Rao]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Not sure about the statement that engine size doesn't matter regards to pollution. If the engine designs are same with different cubic capacities, the higher cubic engine will pollute more.

It is exactly the opposite. A 2.5 Lit Engine tuned for 100 BHP will actually pollute much less than a 1.5 Lit engine tuned for 100 BHP.
A fellow member tabulated this in another thread. Also look at specific fuel consumption figures, a BMW 3 Lit Inline 6 draws less than 600 gms/Hr at idle agains it's 2 Lit 4 cylinder sibling which draws close to 700gms/Hr.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...any-sense.html (Why engine capacity-based diesel vehicle bans don't make any sense)
A 2.2 Lit engine like in XUV500 is ticking away at barely 1700 RPM at 100, where as my much smaller lighter Polo's 1.2 Lit one is at 2500 RPM.

Rahul

[shibujp]

Set air quality norms and enforce the same for public incineration, vehicles, generators and the lot. Tyres, plastic bags etc are commonly burnt in the open here but that does not seem to be a problem.

I do not know why they are hell bent on specifying individual norms for each category. Even if they do, it should derive from a set of global specifications for air quality.

Drive on,
Shibu.