BMC turning blind eye to air pollution issue, says HC; questions nod for over 125 projects in city
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Wednesday castigated the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for turning a "blind eye" towards the issue of air pollution in the city and for "not doing anything" to mitigate the problem.
A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad also questioned as to how the BMC has granted sanction to over 125 construction projects over Rs 1,000 crore in a small city like Mumbai, stating that the situation has now gone beyond the civic body's control.
The court had warned the BMC that it would pass orders restraining it from granting any further permissions for construction if the air pollution situation persists in the city.
ALSO READ: Virat Kohli returns to Vijay Hazare Trophy: King’s tryst with silence and chaos
"How can 125 projects worth more than Rs 1,000 crore be sanctioned in such a small city? That is a lot. Now the situation has gone beyond your (BMC) control. Now you are not able to manage things," HC said.
The court urged the BMC to strengthen its mechanism in such a way that the measures are preventive in nature and not remedial.
The court was hearing a bunch of petitions raising concerns over the deteriorating air quality index in the city.
"The BMC is not doing anything. Even the minimal requirement is not being done. You (BMC) don't have anything in place. There is no implementation plan," the court said.
The civic body has not applied its mind at all, it added.
"The BMC is not working at all. There is no monitoring. The BMC has turned a blind eye to the issue," the HC said, adding the measures taken have to be preventive and not remedial.
The court noted that despite having wide powers, the BMC was not doing anything.
The high court was also irked with the 91 squads of the BMC not conducting inspections at construction sites.
Senior counsel S U Kamdar, appearing for BMC, said on Tuesday 39 sites were visited. The officers of the other squads are busy with election duty, he said.
The bench then said election duty cannot be an excuse.
"You (BMC) can always make an application to the election commission seeking exemption," it said.
Kamdar told the bench that AQI on Wednesday was at 88 which is considered satisfactory. The situation last year was worse, he said.
The bench, however, said simply saying pollution has decreased does not mean the BMC was working.
When the court questioned what the corporation proposed to do in the next two weeks, BMC commissioner Bhushan Gagrani, who was present in the court, said the squads would inspect a minimum of two construction sites per day and take necessary action.
The bench said the squads should be provided with button cameras and GPS devices.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 20.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
Washington (AP): The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women's cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn't even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's USD 500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some USD 3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than USD 133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
