December 24, 2025: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for failing to safeguard construction workers from hazardous air pollution, warning that data collection without on-ground action serves no purpose. The court was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation on Mumbai’s deteriorating air quality.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad sharply questioned the authorities’ approach, particularly their focus on Air Quality Index (AQI) monitoring while neglecting mitigation at construction sites. Reprimanding the MPCB, the Chief Justice said, “How do you safeguard the health of workers? Are there any guidelines for project proponents? The workers at construction sites are exposed to severe pollution. You do not care about the poor. That is what is happening. There is nothing for the workers. At least have masks for them. Don’t they have a claim to right to health?”
The Bench cautioned that Mumbai risks facing conditions similar to Delhi if enforcement continues to lag. “Once it goes out of hand, nothing remains within your control. We have seen that in Delhi for the last several years,” the Chief Justice observed. Emphasising constitutional obligations, the court added, “Not just as an officer of the court but also as a citizen, you have the duty to protect the environment. It has attained the status of a fundamental right of citizens and a corresponding duty.”
The judges questioned why MPCB monitoring stations fail to trigger alarms or public health advisories during severe pollution episodes. BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani, present in court, was asked, “When was the last time you stepped out of your office and carried out surprise visits in the city?” He replied that he had conducted surprise inspections in mid-November and reviewed compliance on October 28.
While the BMC claimed improvement in air quality and said GRAP-4 was not applicable, the court noted widespread non-compliance. Authorities cited issuing 433 show-cause notices and 148 stop-work orders, yet informal inspections found only one of 20–25 sites compliant. The Bench clarified, “We do not want the ongoing work to stop; we want compliance and guidelines. That is the bare minimum. It is a result of simple negligence by builders and project proponents.”
The matter will be heard again on December 24, with the court stating it is willing to sit during vacation if necessary.
