Trending: Call for Papers Volume 4 | Issue 3: International Journal of Advanced Legal Research [ISSN: 2582-7340]



India passed the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act forty years prior, which was the main central regulation to address the nation’s air pollution issue. Air pollution was simply starting to be perceived as a trustworthy danger in significant Indian urban areas at the hour of enactment, and it was being ascribed completely to modern and transportation sources. Today, notwithstanding, the issue has taken on another shape, with a few extra sources, for example, Household discharges, street and construction residue, and biomass burning, being perceived for their commitments. Besides, air pollution in India has at long last been perceived as a general wellbeing danger to the whole country, as opposed to simply metropolitan regions, with more than 99.9% of the populace presented to PM 2.5 levels above WHO standards. Is the Air Act sufficiently able to manage this emergency? What has it accomplished over the most recent forty years? Is there anything that should be refreshed to mirror our present understanding of the idea of air pollution in India?

Keywords- Air Pollution, Air Act, Environment, Constitution


India passed the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act forty years prior, which was the main central regulation to address the nation’s air pollution issue. Air pollution was simply starting to be perceived as a trustworthy danger in significant Indian urban areas at the hour of enactment, and it was being ascribed completely to modern and transportation sources. Today, notwithstanding, the issue has taken on another shape, with a few extra sources, for example, Household discharges, street and construction residue, and biomass burning, being perceived for their commitments. Besides, air pollution in India has at long last been perceived as a general wellbeing danger to the whole country, as opposed to simply metropolitan regions, with more than 99.9% of the populace presented to PM 2.5 levels above WHO standards. Is the Air Act sufficiently able to manage this emergency? What has it accomplished over the most recent forty years? Is there anything that should be refreshed to mirror our present understanding of the idea of air pollution in India?

The Air Act’s set of experiences is interlaced with global occasions that prepared for environmental discussion. The Stockholm Conference Human Environment (1972), at which 113 nations promised to enact arrangements to safeguard regular assets, is the most conspicuous model. The government of India brought the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in the year 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act in 1986 in light of developing worldwide concern. Following quite a while of managing environmental issues, for example, pollution on an impromptu premise, the entry of the Air Act was a turning point that can possibly change India’s air quality administration.

The essential objective of the Air Act is the “conservation of air quality and control of air pollution.” The Water Act of 1974 included arrangements for the foundation of Central and State Boards to direct water pollution. With the section of the Air Act, the mandate of these Boards was expanded to incorporate air pollution guideline too.

The Air Act has largely remained true to its original print in the forty years since its promulgation, with the substantive framework of the Act remaining unchanged. In contrast, the United States’ Clean Air Act of 1963 is constantly updated to ensure that it appropriately responds to new sources of depleted air quality and scientific advances in the field of air quality management.


Environmental legislation, for example, the Clean Air Act, is drafted by the Legislative branch, endorsed by the Executive branch, and deciphered by the Judicial branch. The Clean Air Act was expansive and provided the EPA with a ton of administrative power. Many cases have been recorded trying to restrict or expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s position to manage air pollution.

· Whitman v. American Trucking Association2

In February 2001, the Supreme Court decided for EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and against the shipping business and a few states. “The EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to lay out Ambient Air Quality Standards to safeguard human wellbeing, and they are not allowed to think about the expenses of their guideline.”

·Massachusetts et al v. the EPA3

In April, 2007, the U.S. High Court has decided that the gases that cause an unnatural weather change are toxins under the Clean Air Act.4 The court likewise resolved that the public authority of the United States has the position to control carbon dioxide and other hotness catching gases. The EPA couldn’t decline to manage carbon dioxide outflows because of reasons other than whether they jeopardize general wellbeing or government assistance. When the EPA decides risk, the resolution expects it to manage no matter what the President’s needs.

·Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy5

“Duke Energy upgraded 30 coal-fired electric creating units at eight power plants in North and South Carolina. These plants had recently been unavailable or were just utilized rarely. Duke didn’t acquire permits or introduce pollution control gear on these power plants, and thus, pollution from them expanded fundamentally.” At the point when modern smokestacks and power plants are refreshed, the court decided in April 2007 that they should meet the present financially savvy pollution control standards.

Association of Irritated Residents v. Environmental Protection Agency6

This resident suit, recorded under the government Clean Air Act, “challenged the Trump organization’s EPA’s contingent endorsement of a proposed California intend to lessen ozone levels in the San Joaquin Valley, which has a portion of the most exceedingly awful air quality in the country.”

The Court of Appeals decided that “the EPA’s endorsement of the California plan was inconsistent and fanciful, in light of the fact that it would bring about just ostensible ozone emanation decreases. Besides, the CAA doesn’t block California’s Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program, which the Court of Appeals accepts would essentially further develop California’s ozone decrease plan.”


“Air emissions are regulated at the federal, provincial and territorial levels (and often at the local government level) in Canada. Federally, CEPA regulates air pollution, with several regulations aimed at industry-specific and multi-industry emissions, including asbestos mines and mills, lead smelters and releases of halocarbons. Regulations under CEPA are also targeted at emission reduction, including regarding renewable fuel content, vehicle and engine GHG emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas-fired electricity generation. The National Pollutant Release Inventory requires owners or operators to report emissions if those emissions exceed certain thresholds.”7

The provinces also regulate the air emissions. The British-Columbia Environmental Management Act (EMA) “prohibits the introduction of waste into the environment in the course of conducting a prescribed industry and the introduction of waste into the environment so as to cause (air) pollution.”8 “Authorisations are required for air emissions and often include monitoring and reporting requirements. In Ontario, air emissions are regulated under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).”9 “Regulations under the EPA set out limits for air contaminants determined at ‘points of impingement’ and include permitting and monitoring requirements.”10 Quebec’s Clean Air Regulation includes standards for air emissions, and Quebec also has a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions.11

 Environnement Jeunesse (ENJEU) v. Canada (AG) 

The first rights-based climate litigation suit in Canada was filed in Environnement Jeunesse

(ENJEU) v. Canada (AG)12 in the form of “a climate change class action against the Canadian government on behalf of Québec citizens aged 35 and under. The plaintiffs claimed that by setting a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target insufficient to avoid negative climate change impacts and by lacking an adequate plan to reach its GHG emission targets, Canada violated the section 7 and 15 Charter rights of the class members.” The main remedy sought by ENJEU was a declaration that Canada’s failure to act violated the constitutional rights of the group of plaintiffs. The federal government submitted that the issues were not justiciable because they were inherently political and outside the competence of the court and because the allegation was government inaction. In 2019, at the class certification stage, which on the merits only involved determining whether or not the claim is frivolous or obviously destined to fail, the Quebec Superior Court concluded that the alleged violation of Charter protected rights was not, at the certification stage, nonjusticiable. The court however dismissed the motion for authorization to institute a class action on the basis that the definition of a class of residents of 35 years of age or less was without factual or rational explanation.

Further, in March 2021, in Reference re Greenhouse Pollution Pricing Act, the SCC confirmed the constitutionality of the Canadian federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act highlighting the existential threat posed by climate change.


 The worry for safeguarding and improvement of environment has acquired consideration throughout the previous forty years, when obviously natural abundance of a country isn’t limitless. “The essential certifiable undertaking for the security of environment at the overall level was made through Stockholm Declaration in 1972. The Declaration passed the environmental issues from neighbourhood on to world circle. It is a Magna Carta on human environment. After the Conference, nations generally through the world started giving necessities to guidelines by means of their official arrangement. India being a signatory was invigorated to approach regulations connecting with control and prevention of pollution.” Arrangements were consolidated in Indian Constitution in the Forty-Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act to catch the rush of Stockholm Declaration. This brought into reality by the Articles of Indian Constitution, Article 48 and Article 51-A. Article 48-A states that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”. Article 51-A (g) imposes “fundamental duty on every citizen of India to protect the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.”


The “Air Act a Focal legislation was sanctioned by the Parliament under Article 253 of the Constitution of India in similarity of the decision taken at the Stockholm Conference on Human Environment in June 1972. The Parliament through Articles 51, 253 and Entry 13 of Union List of Indian Constitution has passed the law. Article 253 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make guidelines executing India’s worldwide responsibility or courses of action.”

Article 253 provides that “notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of the Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or ‘convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.”

Article 51 provides for “states endeavour to-

  • Promote international peace and security~
  • Maintain just and honourable relation between nations and;
  • Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and
  • Encourage settlement of international dispute by ”

Entry 13 of the Union List covers: “Participation m International Conference, association and other bodies and implementing of decisions made threat.” The Air Act was therefore enacted by the Parliament by using its powers under Article 253 read with entry 13 of the Union List. “The idea of environment had not been in the minds of the initial architects when the arrangements of the Indian Constitution were discussed and endorsed. At its underlying stage the arrangements for protecting sound environment remained invisible. The seed of such arrangement could be followed in Article 47 of the Indian Constitution.” Article 47 of the Constitution, peruses as follows:

“The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties.”

Remarkable other than Article 47, there are numerous items in the legislative lists, which empower the Center and the States to make regulation in the field of environment. In this way, “general wellbeing and disinfection, agribusiness, land water and fisheries inside the State an area are subjects on which the States have ability to make a regulation. Nuclear energy, oil fields and assets, between state waterways and valleys and fishing in· regional waters are subjects bearing on environmental protection. They come in the Union List where Parliament has ability to enact regulations. The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, moved forest, wildlife and population control from the State to the Concurrent List. This empowers both the State and the Centre to make regulations on these areas.”

In United Nations Conference on Human Environment, at Stockholm the then Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi while showing the Nation’s obligation to the protection of environment, said:

“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land flora and fauna and especially representative sample of the nature ecosystem must be safeguard for the benefits of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate. Nature

conservation including wildlife must therefore receive importance in planning for economic development.”

To agree to the principles of the Stockholm Declarations embraced by the Global Conference on Human Environment, “the Public authority of India, by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 made the express plan for the security and headway of the environment, by the introduction of Article 48A and 51-A (g) which structure the piece of Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties independently.” The amendment gave the going with: ARTICLE 48A

Section 10 of the Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act states that: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country.”


Article 51A (g) provides:

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment

including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

In this manner the “Indian Constitution makes two overlay arrangement (a) On the one hand, it gives directive to the State for the protection and improvement of environment (b) On the other hand the residents owe a sacred obligation to improve and safeguard regular habitat. ln safeguarding the common habitat Article 48A is vital today. Since with the activist methodology of judiciary in India the lawful worth of Directive Principles law has continually experienced growth in the Indian Constitutional set up. Consequently the above arrangements are critical importance. Immaculateness of air we take in and the water we drink is significant for good wellbeing. Similarly significant is the environment wherein we Live and work.”


Air is the main constituent of man’s environment. It is determined that men inhale around 22,000 times each day breathing in around 16 KGs of air by weight. Clean and unadulterated air is extremely fundamental for his wellbeing and endurance. Life stays alive as lengthy a breath last. Tragically, with the breathtaking logical revelations and advancements, we will quite often fail to remember that we Jive in reality as we know it where unadulterated air is at premium and this is only the tip of a chunk of ice.

These hazardous elements of air pollution and different pollutions drove the Supreme Court to determine that “Right to live is a fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution on and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.”13 Along these lines it would incorporate all parts of life that go to make a man’s life significant, complete and worth living. Components, which alone can make it conceivable to live, ought to be announced to be an essential part of the right to life, for example his practice, culture, legacy and insurance of that legacy in its full measure14.

The “right to an environment free of smoke15 and other pollutants follows from the quality of life, which is inherent in guarantee offered by Article 21. Supported by a climate of opportunity and verbalization in the result of the crisis, the Supreme Court went into one of the most imaginative period. Explicitly the Court strengthened and expanded the extension and object of the Fundamental Rights cherished in Part Ill of the Constitution. In the process environmenta protection (however not referenced expressly in Part III of Constitution) was drawn inside the expanding limits of the ‘right to life’ and individual freedom ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court fortified Article 21 out of two different ways. To start with, it required regulations influencing individual freedom to likewise breeze through the assessments of Article 14 and Article I9 of the Constitution in the question of sensibility. Along these lines guaranteeing that the methodology denying an individual of his own freedom be sensible, fair and just. Second, the Court perceived unstated freedoms that are suggested by Article 21. “It is by this second way that ‘the Supreme Court deciphered the Right to life and Personal Liberty visualized in Article 21 of the Constitution to incorporate the Right to clean and healthy environment inside its limits of jurisdiction.”

Despite the fact that the Courts essentially can’t authorize directives nor would the courts be able to force the state to attempt legislation to carry out a directive, the High Court has been giving different directions to Government and administrative authorities to make a positive move to eliminate the complaints, which have been brought about by non-execution of the Directives.16

In a case17 , the Supreme Court upheld that “pollution caused by smoking has been considered as violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 21. The right includes the right to health and the right not to be afflicted by diseases.” ln M.C. Mehta v. Union of India18, the Court, held that, “keeping in view the mandate of Article 47 and 48-A of Part IV of the Constitution, the law casts an obligation on the State to improve public health and protect and improve the environment and as such directions were issued to tackle the problem arising out of chaotic traffic conditions and Vehicular pollution. And such directions were given treating such problems as a legal issue and proceeded to examine the impact of the right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution vis-a-vis declaim in the Environment quality.”

Hence, “the most momentous component of this extension of Article 21 of the Constitution has been the revival of the numerous non-justifiable and non-enforceable freedoms. This makes the Directive principles revered in Part IV of the Constitution as enforceable essential right because of the use of the enchanted wand of Judicial Activism and the ‘Right to a clean and healthy environment’ including the right of clean air being one of such directives as found in Article

48A of the Constitution.” The clearest and most important enunciation of the right by the Supreme Court is possibly in the case of Virendra Gaur and others v. State of Haryana19 in which the Court held:

“Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to live with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance, free from pollution of air and water sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution etc, should be regarded as violation of Article 21. In addition, virtually all the State High Courts have explicitly recognized an environmental dimension to Article 21.”


Article 32 (1) of the Constitution of India talks about “the right to approach the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the said fundamental rights.” Article 32 (2) “empowers the Supreme Court to pass directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, whichever may be appropriate to enforce fundamental rights.”

Throughout the long term, “ the public interest litigation has set off Indian legal commitment with environmental issues. Customarily, a request under Article 32 could be recorded exclusively by an affected individual infraction of his rights and was subsequently an ‘aggrieved individual’. The development of pro bono publico, has loosened up the conventional rule impressively.” Today “any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision”.20



  1. Obsolete: In a very long time since its declaration, the Air Act has just been revised once considerably, regardless of proof of a few holes in the legislation. To start with, the legislation depends on criminal arraignment as the essential instrument for implementation. The tedious case, the PCBs’ inadequate ability to seek after them and low conviction rates in these cases make criminal indictment a wasteful implementation instrument. This is confirmed by the fact that Delhi didn’t record a solitary crook case under the Act in 2019, in spite of being one of the world’s most dirtied urban areas. Correcting the law to empower PCBs to exact punishments under the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ could resolve the issue of ‘postponed and lacking action’ against
  2. No Provision for Funding: The Act doesn’t accommodate stable subsidizing for the PCBs, undermining their capacity to participate in basic air quality administration errands. While some PCBs intensely depend on own-assets through assent charges, NOC, and water cess, others rely upon outer financing. This outcomes in differences in assets across states, as more intensely industrialized states like Maharashtra and Karnataka have more prominent asset age through assent expenses. At long last, unfilled empty places of basic posts, like the Chairperson, are an immediate aftereffect of no time-limit set for their re-filling by the Act. The Act additionally does essentially nothing to furnish for additional individuals with specialized insight to be enlisted on the Boards. As a result, most boards are often overwhelmed by individuals from the state
  3. Legislation neglects to match the speed of advancements: The legislation has additionally neglected to match the speed of improvements in science and air quality administration The Act doesn’t reasonably mirror an airshed approach, regardless of the agreement that air pollution rises above regulatory limits. This outcomes in, for example, Uttar Pradesh’s PCB coming up short on the mandate to record a body of evidence against polluters in New Delhi, subsequently delivering the reformatory design innocuous for arraigning polluters. The Act likewise neglects to incorporate wellbeing takes a chance as a factor to be considered in the administrative structure.
  4. No longer fills its planned need: The Air Act in its present structure no longer fills its expected need. Nonetheless, ongoing developments in air quality administration give desire to centered action through In mid 2021, news hit about an arrangement to redesign the three fundamental Environment legislations in India and establish a united ‘Environment Management Act’. This gives a likely opening to organize components that the Air Act by and by needs – an airshed approach, a successful punishment system that deflects violators, and sufficiently engaged PCBs. In aggregate, it is unquestionable the air pollution in India is currently a more noteworthy fight than the Air Act is prepared to handle.


The Delhi government declared “the much-anticipated Delhi Electric Vehicle (EV) Policy on 7 August 2020. To address the high-forthright expense of EVs (ICE vehicles), the Delhi EV Policy gives demand motivations to buying electric bikes, vehicles, auto-carts, e-carts, e-trucks and merchandise transporters (L5N and N1 vehicles).”21 “The incentives in the form of upfront purchase incentives, scrapping bonus, and loan interest waivers help bring EVs to cost parity with their ICE counterparts. These motivators given by the Delhi EV Policy are notwithstanding those illustrated in the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME II) plan of the Union government. The scheme has a budget of INR 8,500 crore for demand incentives for EVs from (2019–20 to 2021–22).”22 “If the policy achieves its target of 25 percent registration of EVs in new vehicle sales by 2024, approximately 500,000 EVs of various kinds will be operating in the city.23This would translate to a reduction of 159 tonnes of PM 2.5 in Delhi and a reduction of 4.8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, equivalent to avoiding CO2 emissions from nearly 100,000 petrol cars over their lifetime.”24

Powerful use of these assets needs essentially more prominent endeavors by state and metropolitan legislatures to draw in with common society in focusing on actions. Further, the awards should be supported over the 2021-26 time of the fifteenth FC and shift along with NCAP towards overseeing air quality at the provincial level.25 Simultaneously, interests in economic framework, and enhancements openly benefits that will prompt cleaner air should be attempted alongside fostering the information base on sources and air quality checking.26

The limitations on unimportant development in the initial not many months of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a critical decrease in air pollution levels across India. “It accomplished 95% of National Clean Air Program focuses for 2024 in only 74 days in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai,27 as emissions from the transport, construction and industrial sectors almost stopped and those from power plants reduced significantly.”28 Air pollution, in any case, is anything but a one-time, momentary emergency; a common issue requires long haul, comprehensive arrangements. “Assuming the lockdown showed anything, it is that air pollution levels can be cut down drastically assuming India centers its energy towards a green recuperation model that is less outflows serious.”

In the post-COVID-19 time, “the earnestness of resuscitating the economy should not sideline the execution of NCAP. The key moderation estimates will decrease ozone harming substance outflows and along these lines give potential open doors to environment co-benefits. These incorporate changing to cleaner fuel for family utilize that would destroy family outflows, changing to Bharat Stage VI vehicles and powers, severe consistence for modern, power plant and block oven discharges, and a supported program to stop open yield squander copying. In the long haul, NCAP likewise should be increased in a critical way to guarantee that quick financial development and meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are aligned.”29

“While current surrounding PM 2.5 checking in Delhi uncovers undeniable levels in metropolitan regions, remote detecting, thorough air quality demonstrating, and discharge inventories propose enormous scope abundance over the NAAQS, likewise in rural regions.”30 “It is needed to coordinate urban-rural and inter-state actions, as emissions from urban and rural pollution/story-dk5zkame5pnMXskSLM6MQJ.html

areas aggravate one another.”31 While the actions that have been taken by the Union and state legislatures have tried to address a significant number of the main points of interest connected with Delhi’s harmful air, the test is complicated and will require supported, multi-sectoral approaches that will be executed over the long haul.

1 LL.M. Candidate at NLU Delhi & NLIU Bhopal Respectively

2 Whitman v American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).

3 Massachusetts et al v. the EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

4 Ibid.

5 Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy, 549 U.S. 561 (2007).

6 Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, No. 13-73398 (9th Cir. 2015).

7 Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory, available online: www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/pollution-waste-management/national-pollutant-release-inventory.html.    8 EMA, s SBC 2003, c 53, s 6 [EMA].

9 RSO 1990, c E 19, s 175.1.

10 Air Pollution – Local Air Quality, O Reg 419/05.

11 Clean Air Regulation, CQLR c Q-2, r 4.1.

12 Environnement Jeunesse (ENJEU) v. Canada (AG), [2019] J.Q. no 5940, 2019 QCCS 2885 (Que. S.C.).

13 Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, AIR I99I SC 420

14 Ram Sharan v. Union of lndia, AIR 1989 SC 549

15 Shantistar v Narayan, AIR 1990 SC 630.

16 Comptroller v. Jaganathan, AIR 1987 SC 537.

17 Murali S Deora v. Union ofIndia, AIR 2002 SC 40.

18 (1998) 6 SCC 60 para1.

19 1995 (2) SCC 577

20 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, P. 216.

21 Akshima Ghate, Dimpy Suneja, ‘Delhi EV policy’s twin boost: Faster EV adoption and improved air quality’, RMI India, August 27, 2020 https://rmi-india.org/delhi-ev-policys-twin-boost-faster-ev-adoption-and-improved- air-quality/

22 ‘Govt notifies FAME-II scheme for clean mobility; to be rolled out from April’, Economic Times, March 0, 2019, https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/govt-notifies-fame-ii-scheme-for-clean-mobility- to-be-rolled-out-from-april/68324899

23 Akshima Ghate, Dimpy Suneja, “Delhi EV policy’s twin boost: Faster EV adoption and improved air quality,” CNBC, August 27, 2020, https://www.cnbctv18.com/auto/delhi-ev-policys-twin-boost-faster-ev-adoption-and- improved-air-quality-6754021.html.

24 Ibid.

25 Santosh Harish, Shibani Ghosh, ‘The interplay between the pandemic and pollution | Analysis’, Hindustan Times, July 16, 2020, https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-interplay-between-the-pandemic-and-

26 Abhijith, K. V., Prashant Kumar, John Gallagher, Aonghus McNabola, Richard Baldauf, Francesco Pilla, Brian Broderick, Silvana Di Sabatino, and Beatrice Pulvirenti, “Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments–A review.” Atmospheric Environment 162 (2017): 71-86.

27 Esha Roy, ‘Air pollution dropped significantly during 74-day lockdown period: Study’, Indian Express, July 4, 2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/drastic-fall-in-pollution-during-74-days-of-lockdown-analysis- 6488906/

28 Sagnik Dey, Joshua Apte, ‘Clean air can help minimise risks of Covid infections as the economy opens up’, Indian Express, June 29, 2020.

29 ‘India’s pollution control policies unlikely to improve air quality: Study’, Outlook India, March 31, 2019.

30 ‘More than 670 million Indians would breathe poor quality air in 2030 despite compliance with pollution control policies: CEEW-IIASA study’, CEEW, March 29, 2019.

31 ‘India’s pollution control policies unlikely to improve air quality: Study’, Economic Times, March 31, 2019.