SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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