Punitive Purge

Delhi’s pollution crisis is real and demands urgent, targeted action. But the age-based blanket ban on vehicles is a blunt instrument in a fight that requires surgical precision. The assumption that all vehicles beyond a certain age are inherently polluting is flawed and unscientific. Vehicles are not pollutants by birthdate. Emissions depend on maintenance, usage, fuel quality, and technological compliance, not just the date on a registration certificate. But the government decided to exercise a one-size-fits-all policy. Credit to the public outcry, the government has been forced to reconsider its decision.

This policy de facto criminalises ownership of older cars without proper regard for their working conditions. It makes it mandatory to de-register these cars, bans refuelling of the same, and makes them ineligible for re-registration, unless refurbished as electric cars in a process still not clearly defined and out of reach for the average man. The punitive nature of this policy is particularly insulting when viewed against the huge taxes that are paid by citizens at the point of vehicle purchase comprising GST, road tax, registration charges, and green cess.

The economic unfairness of this policy can't be overstated. If a middle-class family were to purchase a Rs 10 lakh car today, almost 40 per cent of that money, approximately Rs 4 lakh would directly go towards taxes, duties, registration fees, and different cess. The government leaves no stone unturned to wring every rupee that it can from the middle class, and now, rather than providing value for this excessive taxation, it appeared resolute on driving them to total destruction by declaring their legally acquired, paid-up vehicles road-illegal after ten years. That well-maintained, rarely used, and PUC-compliant car is now considered unfit to be on the streets of Delhi. It has to be scrapped, sold at a distress price, or fitted with an electric kit, a procedure for which there are no specific guidelines, certified facilities, or affordable alternatives. Meanwhile, a brand new SUV with higher emissions but new registration gets away free. Where is the sense? Where is the justice?

This is not only environmental policy out of control; this is an outrageous assault on Delhi's middle class. It is the salaried, the self-employed, and small businessmen who are going to have to pick up the bill for this one. They who stretched themselves thin to own a vehicle, usually for family safety, for older members, or for night-time emergency trips, are being penalised for the state's inability to construct strong public transport systems or enforce adequate vehicular fitness standards. They are now being forced towards either purchasing new vehicles, an economic luxury beyond their means in the current economy or abandoning private transport.

This policy becomes increasingly shady when its beneficiaries are scrutinised. The automobile manufacturers have a lot to gain from this forced premature retirement of well-functioning cars. A junking of millions of vehicles by the state is equivalent to an artificial increase in demand for new vehicles. The refusal of the government to push retrofitting, its failure to speak out on encouraging resale or transfer of vehicles to other areas, and its opposition to considering technological solutions such as PUC reform all point to an agenda too conveniently aligned with the interests of the auto industry. One is left wondering: is this pollution control or is it about spurring new car sales?

The policy of the government is also plagued by a pernicious environmental irony. Though meant to cut down pollution, the scrapping of vehicles on a mass scale will inevitably create unprecedented amounts of waste. Millions of automobiles will contribute millions of tons of metals, rubbers, plastics, coolants, and battery parts to our already clogged waste streams. Unless a parallel recycling infrastructure is developed as a matter of urgency, one that guarantees scientific, sustainable, and ethical scrapping, this policy could potentially replace air pollution with land and water pollution. And what about the emissions of producing new vehicles to replace the forcibly scrapped ones? The carbon cost of making, transporting, and registering new vehicles could easily counteract any air quality improvement. This environmental double-speak needs to be exposed.

Let us not miss the human toll. The policy disproportionately hits the middle and lower-middle class, citizens who cannot buy a new car every 10-15 years, who need their private cars to go to work, school, medical emergencies, and security. It is the same individuals who maintained their cars, passed annual fitness tests, and paid their taxes punctually. To now tell them that their compliance holds no value, that their vehicles are now ‘illegal’ because of age, is not just a bureaucratic overreach, it is an ethical failure.

Moreover, this policy ignores the potential of modern emissions testing. Today, technology exists to conduct highly accurate, tamper-proof, real-time emission assessments. GPS-equipped PUC centres, onboard diagnostics, and computerised inspection centres can give a scientific and transparent basis for deciding whether a vehicle is a pollutant or not. The government may easily implement a more progressive approach: keep testing all the vehicles from time to time, and only the ones that are failing such tests repeatedly would get de-registered. This would be an emissions-driven policy, not an age-based one. It will be scientific, just, and ecologically effective.

There are lessons in broader policy at that international level, too. In Germany, for example, the low-emission zones are based on real-world emissions data, not the age of the vehicle. Older vehicles meeting Euro standards are permitted, with new ones that fail to meet standards being restricted. Japan also has a very strong 'Shaken' vehicle inspection regime that checks on roadworthiness, safety, and emissions, and is not age-based. These mechanisms safeguard the environment without penalising the economically disadvantaged or generating unnecessary waste.

Delhi must and can take the lead by developing a more inclusive, well-balanced, and efficient approach to address vehicular pollution. It needs to drop its adversarial approach to citizens and start engaging them as stakeholders in the cause of the environment. People are entitled to more than to be made to feel like eco-villains for having cars that were valid, taxed, and compliant yesterday. A government's reputation is not only established on ambitious actions, but on equal, just, and evidence-based policies.

What Delhi requires is not a blanket restriction, but a calibrated shift. A strategy that provides incentives for cleaner transport, tax breaks to those who are willing to make the change, retrofitting incentives for those who are ready to make a transition, and most importantly, an emissions testing system that is effective, fair, and non-prohibitive. Pollution is a national emergency, but the answer cannot be one that precipitates another crisis in the lives of common citizens.

While Delhi gasps for air in yet another season of smog, let us not asphyxiate the middle class under the burden of an unfair policy. Let us rather create a pathway to a cleaner, equitable, and more sustainable urban future, one that harmonises air with economic pride, and environmental exigency with democratic responsibility. The Delhi Government needs to rethink its approach, not because the middle class wants it, but because good governance demands it.

Akshay Malhotra is a Delhi-based advocate, public policy professional, and climate-tech entrepreneur with a background in law, governance, and public administration. Views expressed are personal