As the Delhi government imposed vehicle restrictions amid a surge in pollution levels in the national capital, the commuters shared their worries and anger.
One of the commuters stressed that he had to leave early in the morning for the office and take out his two-wheeler, leaving his BS-IV car. He said that there is a lot of confusion, adding, "Why are taxpayers who have paid 10 years' advance road tax suffering because of sudden orders?" The man further complained, "My Rs 10 lakh car is a waste now. Won’t even get 2 lakh when I sell it. Why doesn’t the government give a subsidy on the sale of BS-IV vehicles to buy BS-VI?" He added, "Where is the system to upgrade from BS-IV to BS-VI?" He further suggested that petrol cars with proper PUC certificates should be allowed to ply, saying, "Not everyone can afford to keep buying new cars."
Around 100 Vehicles Checked, Fined, Sent Back to Noida
The officials said that about 100 vehicles have been checked, and many have been fined and sent back to Noida. Moreover, barricades with GRAP advisory have been set up to spread awareness among commuters.
Delhi’s Environment Minister Manjinder Sirsa on Wednesday announced fresh restrictions on vehicle movement in the national capital to curb worsening air pollution. From today onwards, only BS-VI-compliant vehicles will be allowed to enter Delhi, marking a major step to tighten emission norms.
Under the new rules, BS-III and BS-IV vehicles registered outside Delhi will face strict entry restrictions. The move targets older petrol and diesel vehicles, which are seen as major contributors to the city’s declining air quality.
Also Read: Fuel Curbs, WFH Mandate, Non-BS VI Vehicles Out: Will This Finally Tame Delhi's AQI?
Vehicle Ban Restricts Right to Mobility, Right to Livelihood
The Delhi High Court has allowed the listing of a plea challenging the notification issued by Delhi Government restricting the entry of vehicles registered outside Delhi which are not BSVI compliant. It was pointed out that the restriction imposed also restricts the right to mobility and the right to livelihood.
The counsel sought a stay on the part of the notification, claiming it is arbitrary and imposed without providing any alternative remedy.
Now, the matter is likely to be taken up tomorrow in court.
