The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the lack of charging facilities was discouraging people from buying electric vehicles (EVs), as it underlined the need to provide the necessary infrastructure for a shift away from fossil-fuel vehicles.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the remarks while hearing a petition concerning the allotment of land by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), where the allotment of space for an EV charging facility came up for discussion.
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha recounted a conversation with a person whom he had advised to consider buying an electric car.
"I was suggesting to somebody who was wanting to buy a car. I said, now it's better that you go for EV car. He said, it's very good and super for you to say, but in my place or wherever I go, where is the charging point? There are no charging points," Justice Narasimha said.
The judge then remarked that the absence of charging facilities was holding people back from buying electric cars.
"Because there are no charging points, people are not buying electric cars. If you buy electric cars and transform from fossil fuel into electric, it's going to be a world of difference for our country," he said.
Justice Narasimha added that such a transition could not take place without the necessary facilities being made available.
"But then it doesn't really happen if you don't provide the facilities," he observed.
Justice Narasimha also suggested that EV charging facilities could be provided at the Supreme Court itself, so that vehicles could be charged while their owners were attending court proceedings.
“If you park your car in the Supreme Court here, by the time we dismiss the matter, you get your car charged. That will be advantageous. Ask them to provide charging,” Justice Narasimha remarked.
The observations came after Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the allotment of a parcel of land to another party on a priority basis for an EV charging facility.
Naidu submitted that his client was an adjoining plot owner with an existing industry and had sought a portion of the land for expansion. He argued that the requirements of both parties could have been accommodated by dividing the available area.
The Bench, however, pointed out that the decision to make the allotment for the EV facility was backed by policy and could not be characterised as arbitrary merely because the petitioner had lost out.
"All that we are telling you is, the decision to allot to him is not an arbitrary decision. It's a policy," Justice Narasimha said.
The Court suggested that the petitioner explore with the authorities whether the remaining area could be allotted in a manner that addressed its concerns over access and expansion.