Overview On December 23, 2025 , the Bombay High Court strongly criticized the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for their failure to protect construction workers from hazardous air pollution. The court emphasized that merely collecting data is insufficient without concrete actions to improve the situation on the ground. Key Developments Court's Observations A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad , while hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) concerning Mumbai’s deteriorating air quality, rebuked MPCB counsel Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for suggesting that enforcement claims required further verification. Chief Justice Chandrashekhar questioned the measures taken to safeguard the health of construction workers and the existence of guidelines for project proponents. The Bench warned that Mumbai could face a crisis similar to Delhi if authorities continue to disregard compliance with environmental norms. The court criticized the focus on Air Quality Index (AQI) monitoring without adequate on-site mitigation efforts. BMC's Response BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani , present in court, stated that he had conducted two surprise visits in mid-November and last reviewed compliance on October 28 . Senior Advocate S.U. Kamdar , representing the BMC , stated that the Commissioner had issued directions and show-cause and stop-work notices were issued to project proponents found in breach of guidelines. Authorities claimed to have issued 433 show-cause notices and 148 stop-work orders . Amicus Curiae's Concerns Senior advocate Darius Khambata , appointed as amicus curiae , supported the Bench’s concerns, citing violations at six major infrastructure projects and several road-concretization sites in Bandra. He highlighted that although BMC records over 1,900 construction sites in Mumbai, less than 600 have installed AQI monitors, and some sensors remain unlinked. Mr. Khambata urged immediate enforcement of measures like water fogging, covering debris, sensor-based monitoring, and protective gear. Court's Directives The court directed the BMC and MPCB to prioritize the protection of construction site workers and ensure compliance with environmental guidelines. The Bench questioned the absence of health advisories for vulnerable groups despite high AQI levels. The court adjourned the hearing to December 24 and indicated its willingness to convene even during vacation if necessary. UPSC Relevance This news article is relevant to the UPSC Civil Services Exam under the following areas: GS Paper 2: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice (Judicial review, environmental regulations, right to health). GS Paper 3: Environment, Pollution (Air pollution, mitigation measures, role of statutory bodies like MPCB), Infrastructure (Impact of construction activities on the environment). Important Facts The Bombay High Court is addressing air pollution concerns through a suo motu PIL . The BMC and MPCB are under scrutiny for their enforcement of environmental regulations at construction sites. The court is concerned about the health risks faced by construction workers due to air pollution. There is a focus on ensuring compliance with guidelines and implementing mitigation measures at construction sites. The court is emphasizing the importance of protecting the environment as a fundamental right of citizens.