Cannot Allow Bar Members To Face Risk: Supreme Court Orders Armed Guards For Court Commissioners Ensuring Pollution Control Measures In Delhi

The Supreme Court today expressed concern about reports by Court Commissioners, appointed in a batch of cases relating to mitigation of pollution in the National Capital Region, fearing for their security while conducting inspections to examine the compliance of the Court's Orders.

Court Commissioners had submitted to the Court that they felt unsafe while examining the implementation of Graded Response Action Plan measures, particularly in the outskirts of Delhi. One Commissioner told the Court that they were informed by a police officer that an area they were in was run by "big shooters and big gangs, who are very active right now".

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, "We cannot allow members of the Bar to be subjected to risks as the reports indicate that some of them were subjected to threats." The Court gave the appointed Commissioners the option to withdraw from the duties entrusted to them. For those who wish to continue, the Court directed, "Protection of armed policemen shall be given to them."

The Court added that police officials posted for Court Commissioners' protection "shall be given clear instructions that they will not communicate the movement of the Court Commissioners" after it was submitted that toll plaza employees were coordinating through instant messaging groups on their movement to avoid detections of laxity in implementing GRAP-IV measures. 

The GRAP-IV measures were extended by the Court till Thursday, even as the Commission for Air Quality Management urged their relaxation stating that meteorological factors play the biggest role in the air quality of the National Capital Region.

While the Bench perused the Air Quality Index (AQI) data from November recorded by the Central Pollution Control Board, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, said, "This will go on till January, this way only. We have seen this in the past several years." Bhati asked the Bench to relax GRAP-IV measures, which include a complete halt on construction and strict vehicle restrictions, calling them "extremely disruptive." The Bench considered the absence of a "clear downward trend" in the AQI levels, which have continued to hover around 300, and ordered the continuation of GRAP-IV measures.

The Court also expressed shock at the reports filed by Court Commissioners revealing "a complete lack of coordination" between the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee), the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and other authorities and urged the CAQM to ensure coordination between all entities.

Taking a stern view of the non-payment of compensation to construction workers, who have been left without work on account of GRAP-IV measures, the Court directed the Chief Secretaries of the NCR states to be present through video conferencing on the next date of hearing. "It is our experience that the ball starts rolling only when we summon top officials," Justice Oka remarked.

In time, the Court said, it would go into all aspects surrounding the problem of pollution in the NCR to come up with permanent solutions. The Court asked Amicus Curiae Advocate Aparajita Singh to propose a list of issues within two weeks.

In the last hearing on November 28, the Court had observed that the material placed before it indicates "abject failure" by various authorities to implement pollution control measures in the NCR. The hearing saw various counsel narrating instances of violations of GRAP measures, from construction in posh localities in Delhi, to burning of dried leaves, truckers avoiding highways, lack of surveillance at the capital's borders and cement being transported with food grains as decoy.

The Court had said it expects states to explain the action they propose to take in case of breaches pointed out to the Court and asked the CAQM to expedite taking action against officials not efficiently implementing pollution control measures.

Cause Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 13029 of 1985 PIL-W]