“How much time should we deal with such matters? Other matters are waiting for their turn… We have more than 8 lakh pending cases but we are unable to hear them…” Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar remarked on Tuesday, 27 January, as a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising him and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed deep frustration over the authorities’ “slow pace” and declined to continue overseeing endless compliance reports, noting that the court already has more than 8 lakh pending cases.

Questioning whether the Court should be burdened with monitoring implementation, the Chief Justice asked, “Should we form a Committee to check for compliances? We can’t decide the compliances… The Committee can sit twice a month and see the compliance and once in two or three months, they can forward the reports to us for passing some necessary orders, if any.”

Emphasising the need for a workable and transparent solution, he suggested a public platform, saying, “Create a website, put all the details in it… People have a right to know and they must know… It will help people to know what is the AQI around their house and they can take adequate precautions.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Khambatta relied on a Lancet study to highlight the grave impact of air pollution, stating that it accounted for 17.8% of all deaths in India in 2019 and also pointing out that, “As per the study, Air Pollution accounted for more than 17 per cent deaths in India in 2019.” He added that “This loss is not limited to lives alone it also had nearly 8 million dollars impact on the economy.”

Khambatta also referred to CPCB data showing that Mumbai recorded 18 days of unhealthy air quality and cited China’s success in controlling air pollution through strong political will, remarking, “For the authorities, the lives (of citizens) may be cheap but they can take into account the economic loss.” “Every year, the pollution is just getting worse... God alone knows what would be the numbers (of Air Pollution deaths)’’.

Background:

Last week , the bench strongly criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for failing to make genuine efforts. It specifically highlighted the conduct of the NMMC Commissioner, noting that he had avoided filing a personal affidavit and instead delegated the task to a city engineer. Taking serious note of this, Chief Justice Chandrashekhar observed, “We propose to pass an order directing the Commissioner, NMMC not to draw his salary till further orders are passed by this court.”

During the hearing, counsel for the BMC, SU Kamdar, placed a status report on record. However, the judges rejected it, observing that the steps mentioned in the report were taken only after repeated directions from the Court. Expressing clear frustration, the Chief Justice orally remarked, “Only after court order, you have taken steps… What have you been doing in the last six months? The status report itself shows you were not doing anything before this court passed orders… Why these steps were not taken before? We need to pass some coercive order even against you… We are not sitting here to take stock of the situation… It is your duty to ensure it… this is not our duty to monitor status reports.”

Despite Kamdar highlighting over 800 show-cause notices to errant sites, CJ Chandrashekhar retorted, "But that's your duty Mister... You cannot be saying it like this... It is your duty to enforce the laws and ensure there is no violation... We will have to stop your (BMC chief) salary too..."

NGO Vanshakti's Janak Dwarkadas demanded officer accountability with heavy fines, while Amicus Curiae Darius Khambatta flagged over 500 construction sites missing AQI monitors.

The bench urged the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for bolder action, suggesting extraordinary fining powers up to Rs 5 crores and warning both commissioners of impending salary stops, before listing the matter for January 27.

High Court’s Direction:

The bench took the records on file, adjourned the matter to 29 January 2026, and repeated its reluctance to continue monitoring the issue, observing : "We are very serious... We can't monitor this... How can we monitor it like this... Everytime orders are being passed from last 3 years... But we believe a system must be there in place... On the next hearing, come up with suggestions as to who could be made a part of the Committee... We will pass orders then."

Case Details: High Court on its own motion Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors