Supreme Court's views on pollution control are disastrous
On August 10, 2017, the Supreme Court came down heavily in favour of a regime of pollution control - by directing that no insurance policy for a motor vehicle would be renewed without production of “Pollution Under Control” certificate in the National Capital Region.
Four weeks’ time has been granted for setting up the necessary infrastructure and this direction is among a slew of other directions in the face of raging pollution. The orders of the court have been welcomed by “activists” as timely and unavoidable.
Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The surer the good intent, certain the unintended consequences, could be.
The order of the Supreme Court ought not to be read in isolation. The ramifications cannot be construed from the “pollution control” point of view alone. If the Supreme Court order is enforced and the renewal of insurance policies is refused, then it would mean nothing but disaster for road users. How? And why?
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has mandated insurance as compulsory for all users of vehicles on public roads. Except for vehicles owned by the government and/or defence forces, the need to avail insurance for motor vehicles to guard against risks caused to lives, limbs and property of road users, is mandatory.
The said provision does not contain any such stipulation to produce “Pollution Under Control certificate”. Our Supreme Court, as the most powerful institution in the world, has judicial overreach in its judicial DNA and this order is one in the continuum.
This is nothing but stark, naked judicial legislation, and not an isolated example since the legislature and executive have yielded the space for the top court to make its forays with ease.
Be that as it may, at the constitutional philosophy plane, the more direct impact would be on the practical hemisphere, having a direct impact on road users, which is quite disconcerting.
“Road accidents are major killers in the country. Medieval roads, ill-maintained, and reckless drivers tipsy with potions, and lax traffic discipline control” - as Justice Krishna Iyer felicitously put it - have ensured there is a death on Indian roads every 5-6 minutes at the last count, according to National Crime Records Bureau statistics. There are fatalities by the dozens and maimed in scores, all year round. The economic impact on individuals, families, communities, societies, and the nation as a whole is staggering and never a factor in the policymaking of the powers that be.
In such a dark scenario, with burgeoning motor accidents claims, huge pendency and delayed disposals, compulsory motor insurance of motor vehicles is the only saving grace of any substance.
Motor insurance is a big and thriving business, and thanks to the liquidity this portfolio offers, the insurers vie in desperation to have a share in the premium pie - even if the portfolio was bleeding and loss was written all over it.
Equally, it is a matter of reality from recorded figures that 33 per cent of motor vehicles running on the roads, at the very least, according to pleading in a PIL before Supreme Court, are uninsured. Hence, already the innocent road accident victim is required to deftly pick and choose the vehicle he is likely to be knocked down by, if he can, to ensure certainty in receipt of compensation.
While so, the orders of the Supreme Court mandating production of “Pollution Under Control” certificate would surely result in many more motor vehicles being run without insurance - for the vehicle owner “would typically be lazy and supinely indifferent” as the apex court itself puts it elsewhere.
Uninsured vehicles would continue to run, as enforcing their non-use is impossible and non-existent, and the innocent road user would be at the mercy of “the men of straw” - owners of vehicles - to get over which alone insurance was made mandatory, as the top court said.
Surely, the Supreme Court never took note of this critical issue of uninsured motor vehicles causing mayhem on the roads - and the cultural ethos of the vehicle owner in India to be careless on the need for insurance.
This judicial overreach may well lead to judicial over (kill) with no compensation to the maimed and mauled on our roads - paved to hell for the victims - good intentions notwithstanding.