“How can this be legal?” Why Mahua Moitra, CJP’s Saurav Das questions BS-VI exemption for Delhi lawyers | Today’s news
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and Saurav Das of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) criticized the Delhi High Court’s decision to exempt lawyers and court employees from restricting the entry of non-Delhi-registered vehicles that do not meet BS-VI emission norms, questioning the legality of the exemption and raising liability concerns.
In response to the order, Moitra questioned its legality, writing on X: “Huh? How can this be legal? The Delhi High Court has completely lost it?”
Saurav Das also criticized the exemption, raising concerns about judicial accountability and equality before the law.
“Courts have been doing this for ages. They keep completely absolving themselves of any accountability and transparency. This is just one step further. RIP equality before the law!” Das wrote.
What did the Delhi High Court order?
Justice Amit Mahajan on Friday issued the order on a petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), according to PTI. The exception will apply to lawyers and court employees on court working days.
DHCBA has sought an exemption for vehicles legally used by advocates residing in the National Capital Region (NCR) traveling to Delhi on business.
Citing pollution concerns, the Delhi government on June 23 decided to ban all foreign motor vehicles that do not meet BS-VI emission norms from entering the capital between November 1 and January 31.
The association alleged that a large number of advocates travel to Delhi courts from NCR cities including Gurugram, Faridabad, Noida and Ghaziabad to perform judicial duties.
DHCBA president and senior advocate N Hariharan questioned the blanket nature of the restrictions.
“How can there be a blanket ban? We are performing judicial functions. If half of us can’t come here, how will the courts function?” he argued.
In its petition, the association acknowledged the importance of clean air and the state’s power to regulate vehicle emissions. However, he mentioned that in the interests of justice, lawyers should be exempted from the restrictions.
The petition also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan which recognized access to justice as an aspect of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
She stated that the timely participation of lawyers when required by the court serves the interests of the litigants and the administration of justice. The association argued that the impact of restrictions on access to courts should be weighed against the need to regulate vehicle emissions.
(With agency input)
