Read The Directions Issued By Supreme Court To Curb Air Pollution In Delhi

In an assertive move, the Supreme Court has issued a series of directives today to combat the pollution crisis in Delhi and its neighbouring regions. Leaving no room for delay and seeking immediate implementation of its directions, the Court sternly directed the Governments of Punjab, Rajasthan, and Haryana to take immediate and decisive measures to cease the detrimental practice of stubble burning by farmers.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated, "The residents of Delhi have been struggling with health issues because we don't seek to find a solution year after year to the aggravated problem of pollution at this time of the year. This has been the ongoing process for 5 years. It is time that something is done as of yesterday, than postponing it, as we do believe that the matter requires immediate attention and Court monitoring irrespective of the fact that weather the weather improves or not."

Noting down the various issues flagged by the counsels concerning the aforesaid and the constructive suggestions made by Advocate General for the State of Punjab Gurminder Singh Kharbanda, the Court noted as follows:

Stubble Burning and Alternative Solutions:

The Court stated, "1. The farmers are burning stubble on the count of economic reasons. The alternatives given to them are not being adhered to in our view because of obstinacy in some cases and as Mr. Kharbanda says because of economic reasons. It is his suggestion that an endeavour should be made and an alternative solution is provided free of cost. Thus while expensive machines have been purchased, 50% or 25% cost is being paid by the farmer. In view of small holdings, he submits that farmers are also unwilling for the same. He thus suggests that Punjab is willing to bear 25% of the cost of making those facilities free and the suggestion is that 25% can be born by Delhi. There being common political dispensation, obviously, to the extent of aforesaid there seems to be no difference of perception. He simultaneously states that the central government can bear 50% of this cost and we do believe that when the centre provides so many other subsidies, there is no reason why this cost should not be borne."

Paddy Cultivation in Punjab must be phased out:

The Court on this aspect noted, "Let us say these are immediate measures required for the short term but Punjab is seeing a scenario where the growth of paddy is causing the water table to decline that too drastically. A number of wells have been stated to have gone beyond redemption. It is his suggestion and we believe it, that paddy cultivation must be phased out to be substituted with other crops and the Central Government should explore the aspect of giving minimum support price for the alternative crops that are given for paddy."

Continuing the Court noted, "The misuse is also arising from the MSP for paddy which is that the paddy grown in adjacent states is then illegally brought into Punjab to claim MSP and sold under the MSP Policy. The particular kind of paddy which is grown in Punjab, of which the stubble is a by-product, coupled with the season when it grows and the period required for cultivation, causes the problem. A serious consideration is required whether this kind of paddy should at all be grown and certainly, we believe, this problem is persistent with the particular paddy which is grown and the time period when it is grown. In fact, say 15 years back, this problem used to not exist because this particular cropping used to not take place."

Delhi has a particular locational issue:

The Bench on this aspect ordered, "It is true that Delhi has a particular locational issue. Therefore the condition in and around the Delhi States and Delhi affects the pollution level. We can't be dependent on the weather conditions alone to hope for some redemption. We want all the stakeholders to act promptly in respect to the aforesaid aspects."

Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009 requires re-consideration:

The Court stated, "In so far as the immediate act is required, the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009 has been brought to our notice. No doubt that the objective of that act is to preserve the subsoil but there are ramifications arising due to the violation of that Act. Because sowing takes place after a particular time period, the cutting of the paddy also gets delayed and then it hits the season due to atmospheric conditions and the impact is felt by Delhi and its surrounding areas. The said Act also provides for punitive measures so that farmers don't sow the crop after the specified date. We direct the State of Punjab to strictly follow and adhere to the legislative Act. What is submitted is that when paddy used to be sown earlier, the problem used to not arise and the adherence to this Act is causing the problem which requires the State of Punjab to take a relook at the Act. A switchover to an alternative crop is necessary so that next year we don't face this problem. The switchover can only occur if the MSP is not granted for the paddy but is given to the alternative crop, something which the central government in any case is seeking to encourage by growing the traditional crop."

Stop crop burning forthwith; Police responsible for implementation:

The Bench ordered, "We direct the state government of Punjab and for that matter, all adjacent states to Delhi i.e., Rajasthan, Haryana and UP to ensure that crop burning is stopped forthwith and the local SHO is made responsible for it under the overall supervision of the Chief Secretary for the time being."

The Bench on the aspect of the functioning of the Smog Towers in Delhi noted, "It is stated that the smog towers which have been installed in pursuance to directions made earlier and on an experimental basis are not working. On the query, the answer is some disciplinary action is proposed against the officer. This is ludicrous. We want the tower to be working, as to which officer what they do is their business."

Real-time monitoring of air quality to take place:

The Court observed, " It is suggested that real-time monitoring was to take place by the DPCC but that the result has not been put in the public domain. We direct compliance forthwith and direct the Chairperson of DPCC to be personally present in the Court on the next date of the hearing."

Municipal Solid Waste not to be burned in open:

The Court directed, "At the suggestion of learned amicus, we direct the Delhi State Government to monitor and to ensure that MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) is not burned in the city or in the open as happening during this period as it has an impact."

Meeting of stakeholders to be convened for immediate resolution:

The Court directed, "Lastly, we consider that for immediate action, Chief Secretaries should call for a meeting tomorrow itself whether physically or through Zoom and all stakeholders will connect to ensure that we have a better picture and some redemption by Friday."

Odd-even policy unscientific method, orange stickers car can be banned instead:

The Court here observed, "In order to control vehicular pollution, a coloured coded sticker was envisaged, even a reference was made in order of 2nd December 2022. It appears the same has been only implemented by the Delhi Government while it had to be implemented by even adjacent states. No compliance report has been filed. Concerned states to obtain instruction. We may also notice that we would like to know what is the methodology of controlling vehicles though the Delhi government is seeking to impose restriction on the basis of an 'odd-even policy' Amicus submits that it is an unscientific method and on the basis of coloured coded stickers vehicles which have orange stickers can be banned. This aspect also, the State Government to report back to us."

Furthermore, we have observed that a substantial number of taxis in Delhi are registered in different states, each carrying only one passenger. We seek information on whether there is a feasible means to restrict the operation of taxis to only those registered in Delhi during this period.

The Court in its order noted, "We may also note that there are a large number of Taxis in Delhi which have registrations in different states. Each one of them carries one passenger. We would like to know whether there is any way of monitoring during this period of time that only taxis registered in Delhi are permitted to ply."

The Court also directed the Delhi government to present a detailed account of the environmental compensation charges collected and their utilization. The Court ordered the matter to be posted on Friday.