But even apart from these obvious and significant points, there are aspects of the judicial stress on relocation of polluting units, which are extremely puzzling from a basic human rights perspective. Take the idea of protection from atmospheric and water pollution. The judgement (and middle class support of it) implicitly seems to suggest that such pollution cannot be accepted in the deemed "residential" parts of Delhi - but it is all right if it happens in other parts.
 
There is thus an obsession with the Master Plan of Delhi, an outdated and unsystematic plan which has continuously been outpaced by the reality of migration, population growth and actual urban expansion. This plan has become the tenuous base for a sweeping attempt at massive relocation which would - if fully implemented as stated - become a historically unprecedented forced migration.
 
Note that the judges have not demanded cleaner technology (which is actually available) so that such pollution does not occur at all or is reduced. Rather, they have simply demanded that the polluting units move, and go and do their noxious stuff elsewhere. This clearly suggests that those residing in designated "residential areas"  - the middle and upper classes - deserve clean air and water more than those residing in less happily classified areas. There appears to be no judicial outrage or concern, for example, over the plight of the very large population of poor working people living in tenements in the Badarpur area (not classified as a residential area despite its large resident population), which is surely one of the worst polluted zones of the city. 
 
Similarly, the Supreme Court - which must after all take into consideration the interest of all the citizens of the country - seems to be especially concerned with the plight of those within the city who currently live near polluting units. What about those who live in or near the areas to which such industries are to be relocated ? Are they not entitled to clean air and water ?
 
Even more inexplicable is the Court's apparent inability to consider the worst sufferers of industrial and other forms of pollution - the workers themselves. Surely it must be obvious that if a factory produces noxious gases and poisonous effluents, the most likely and immediate victims are the workers who are forced to spend many hours in such conditions, and who typically are also forced to live near the place of work in highly unsanitary conditions. What about their rights to a clean environment ?
 
The untutored observer can be forgiven for thinking that somewhere in all this there in an implicit hierarchy of rights. What defines this hierarchy ? it cannot be sheer number, for the number of workers and of the population affected adversely by such a judgement is very large indeed, while the number of those who would benefit may well be significantly smaller. Certainly location, or cartographic position, plays a role, since those lucky enough to live in "residential" colonies - even if there are finally less people living in them than in "non-residential" areas - are given preference.
 
But underlying all this there may be the most significant hierarchy of all, that of class position. This defines how important it is for some people to have a clean and healthy environment, while the environment and even livelihood of many others is not seen as significant at all. Thus it is that we have a judiciary , an English language media and a set of elite and middle class people that get extremely agitated about polluting units and want them all thrown out of the city, even as they themselves contribute to atmospheric pollution far more definitively by daily adding to the number of vehicles on the roads.
 
Of course, such an implicit hierarchical perception of the rights of citizens is not a new one - it has existed in many societies and cultures before. But it does sit uneasily in a society which claims to be democratic and universalist, and where the courts are meant to uphold a Constitution that enshrines the fundamental equality before law of all its citizens. Ands it exposes the unabashedly elitist base of some of this new-found upper class "green activism".