SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

Shweta Kapoor and Ors. v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (11 Jan 2016)

Delhi High Court refusal to interfere in ‘odd-even’

MANU/DE/0045/2016

Motor Vehicles

In most other decisions the High Court’s refusal to interfere with government policy on its merits and possible alternatives may seem mundane, but it meant the continuation (and natural termination) of the curious (but effective?) ‘odd-even’ vehicle scheme in Delhi. The Court accepted the noble pollution-reducing motives of the policy, its limited lifespan and sufficiency of exemptions, from a detailed analysis of the Delhi government notification. It found no cause to adjudge the “pilot project” unconstitutional, arbitrary or irrational since it was founded on expert knowledge.

Relevant : BALCO Employees' Union Vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0779/2001 Section115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Act

Tags : DELHI   ODD-EVEN   VEHICLE RESTRICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved