Starting July 1, Delhi residents’ cars could be turned away at the fuel pump, not for unpaid dues, but for driving a car deemed “too old.” Under a sweeping policy announced by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), petrol vehicles older than 15 years and diesel vehicles older than 10 will be denied fuel, flagged as End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs), regardless of their actual emissions.
The aim is to clean up Delhi’s toxic air. But the result? More confusion, less choice, and questionable impact. The rule is being enforced through a citywide web of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras installed at nearly all of Delhi’s 520 fuel stations.
These cameras scan license plates, cross-check vehicle data with the VAHAN database, and trigger alerts when an “overage” vehicle arrives. Fuel attendants have been instructed to deny service, and enforcement teams will impound non-compliant vehicles or push them toward scrap yards. This is not environmental reform, it is policy theatre. A blanket ban based on age, not emissions, unfairly targets consumers who’ve maintained their vehicles well and complied with pollution norms. A 12-year-old diesel car that passes its Pollution Under Control (PUC) test might pollute less than a poorly serviced newer model. Yet under this regime, it’s the former that gets sidelined.
Worse still, the same system has flagged 30 lakh vehicles in Delhi without a valid PUC. If compliance enforcement is so poor, why go after vehicle age instead of fixing what’s broken? We’re punishing rule-followers while letting real violators slip through the cracks. The economic impact is also being ignored. For many middle and working-class families, replacing a 15 or 10- year-old vehicle isn’t just inconvenient; it’s impossible. In a city where EVs are still out of reach for most and public transport is overcrowded, older vehicles are essential tools of daily life.
This policy amounts to a forced upgrade without a realistic path for consumers to comply. There are no scrappage incentives, buyback offers, transitional support, just a fuel denial notice. Such one-size-fits-all rules create perverse incentives. Owners may start re-registering vehicles outside the NCR, gaming the system, or turning to black markets for fuel or documents. When Venezuela restricted air conditioning during blackouts, people turned to illegal workarounds. When India launched the odd-even scheme, it grabbed headlines but delivered minimal long-term benefits. People find ways around rules that do not align with how they live. Delhi isn’t the first city to deal with a pollution crisis, and it won’t be the last. But how we act matters.
Countries like Japan and Sweden haven’t banned older cars; they’ve encouraged transitions through transparent timelines, buy-back schemes, and smart tax incentives. In Germany, low-emission zones are based on vehicle output, not arbitrary cutoffs. These policies work because they focus on actual pollutants, not easy optics. And let us not pretend surveillance isn’t part of the story. With every fuel station camera linked to centralized databases, we’re automating compliance through digital monitoring with no public debate.
Turning gas stations into checkpoints may sound like smart enforcement, but it edges dangerously close to routine surveillance. At what point does this data-tracking get used beyond environmental purposes? If Delhi is serious about pollution, it should focus on proven reforms. Enforce PUC norms properly. Expand rebates for BS-VI or electric vehicle adoption. Offer meaningful scrapping incentives. Use toll exemptions or dynamic road pricing to nudge cleaner transport choices. And above all, trust consumers to make informed decisions when given the right tools.
At the Consumer Choice Center, we believe environmental progress doesn’t require stripping away individual freedom. It needs policies that empower people, reward good choices, and avoid punishing the very citizens who are doing their best. Clean air is essential, but so is consumer fairness. If Delhi wants lasting change, it must lead with innovation, not intimidation.
Originally published here