Raja Singh vs Union of India & Ors

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submit that the applicant had preferred a Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court bearing no. W.P. (C) 7810/2021 on the issue of inclusion of ventilation for prevention of airborne infection spread. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 05.07.2021 had directed that the petition be treated as a representation and asked the concerned Respondents to carry out the exercise with due deliberation.

Thereafter, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Respondent No. 5 has written a letter to the applicant and relied upon the definition clause of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act l98l (in short ‘Air Act’) and asserted that the issue of indoor-air doesn’t fall under the ambit of the Air Act. The relevant portion of the reply is produced hereunder:

“…The Air Act, 1981 defines ‘air pollutant’ and ‘air pollution’ as under:

Section 2(a) defines ‘air pollutant’ as any solid, liquid or gaseous substance that may be harming or injuring the environment, humans, other living creatures, plants or even property.

Section 2(b) defines ‘air pollution’ as the presence of any air pollutant in the atmosphere.

The aforesaid definitions clearly shows that the issue of indoor air is not covered under the purview of the Air Act.”

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the ‘Air  Act’’ entails that the air pollution means ‘the presence in the atmosphere of any air pollutant’. It may also be noted that atmosphere is defined as ‘the mass of air surrounding the earth’. It is next submitted that the Air Act nowhere draws the distinction between the enclosed-public spaces and open-public spaces.

It is further submitted that large public buildings, where people gather in large numbers, the air quality in such buildings is a matter of concern and requires appropriate analysis in scientific terms. It is submitted that the ventilation, especially in large public buildings is currently seen just as an engineering problem. However, currently scientists in India and across the world are raising voice to make indoor air as a public health issue.

It is next submitted that the study by the Applicant, published in a medical journal of International Repute found that the filters in many public buildings of importance in New Delhi, were inappropriate to filter the particulate matter PM 2.5. Nevertheless, even if such a situation exists, no action is taken as the same is deemed to be an  engineering issue and not a public health issue. It is further submitted that had there been a law governing the indoor air quality in public spaces, there would have been scope of bringing the defaulting buildings and their managers to book.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant has prayed that appropriate direction be issued to include Indoor Air, especially of public spaces, in the definition of 'atmosphere' in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act l98l and Indoor Air quality may be included in the implementation of preservation of air quality and control of air pollution. It has further prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to include biological contaminants in the definition of air pollutants, so that steps can be taken for spread of prevention of airborne disease spread in public spaces.

We have considered the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has prayed that definition of atmosphere be incorporated in the ‘Air Act’ and also to include indoor air, especially in public places. He has further prayed that direction should be passed to include biological contaminants in the definition of the Act so that steps can be taken for air born disease.

We have given our thoughts to the matter. This Tribunal is not empowered to pass directions for amendment in the definition of air pollution as defined in Section 2A of the Act or to pass direction to include indoor air in the definition of atmosphere. It may be noted that atmosphere has not been defined in the Act and, therefore, no directions can be passed by this Tribunal to amend the Act and to add the definition which has not been provided by the legislature. The relief prayed by the applicant, therefore, cannot be granted.

The application is, therefore, dismissed. However, the applicant is at liberty to move appropriate forum/court for the relief sought by him.