This Article is From Jan 05, 2016

Odd Even Rule: Plea Filed In Court Against Delhi Government's Scheme

Odd Even Rule: Plea Filed In Court Against Delhi Government's Scheme

Some of the Public Interest Litigations have challenged the Odd Even scheme as being "arbitrary" or "ill-conceived".

New Delhi: A fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the AAP government's odd-even scheme was today moved before Delhi High Court which listed the matter for hearing tomorrow along with several other petitions that have been filed on the issue.

The Delhi government's temporary initiative to check alarming air pollution has come under fire from the day it was announced and the latest petition too has sought quashing of the administration's December 28, 2015, notification bringing the scheme into force for 15 days from January 1.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath listed the petition for hearing along with the other PILs filed against the scheme.

Some of the PILs have challenged the entire scheme as being "arbitrary" or "ill-conceived", while others are against certain portions of it, like the exemptions given to women drivers and two-wheelers.

There are some PILs seeking inclusion of certain categories like lawyers in the list of exempted persons and some which have questioned whether the government has the power to modify vehicular movement in the national capital.

The vehicles exempted from odd-even scheme include those of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, Union Ministers and Governors and Chief Ministers of states and Union Territories "except that of Delhi".

Besides, women drivers, CNG-certified vehicles, VIPs, two -wheelers, ambulances, defence and embassy vehicles have also been kept out of the purview of the scheme.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had said while announcing the scheme that he and his cavalcade will not avail the exemption offered to the VIPs.

The latest petition by Delhi resident B Badrinath claims that the city government's scheme violates his fundamental rights of equality, freedom of movement and right to practice any profession or occupation, guaranteed under the Constitution.