Supreme Court directives on stubble burning over the years

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns about the effectiveness of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in tackling the issue of air pollution in Delhi, exacerbated by agricultural stubble burning in neighbouring states such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Capital’s air quality has been a recurring problem each winter, with crop residue burning contributing significantly to the toxic smog that blankets the city.
While this issue has persisted for years, the Supreme Court has consistently issued directives aimed at mitigating pollution levels in Delhi. Despite numerous government initiatives, the battle against stubble burning continues, as evidenced by a recent report highlighting over 200 farm fires in Punjab and Haryana last month alone. These fires point to gaps in the implementation of the Supreme Court’s orders and raise questions about the efficacy of measures taken by the states and central government.
To truly comprehend the persistent issue of Delhi’s air pollution and the critical role of agricultural stubble burning, it’s essential to delve into the Supreme Court’s extensive directives over the years. Understanding these orders sheds light on the recurring nature of this problem, the court’s efforts to address it, and the implementation gaps that hinder progress. Examining the interplay between judicial mandates and executive action—or inaction—reveals the complexities of tackling air pollution, illustrating why the problem continues to resurface each winter despite years of concerted legal and policy efforts.
ALSO READ- President’s rule revoked in Jammu and Kashmir, paves way for Omar Abdullah govt
SC lens on farm fires
The Supreme Court began monitoring Delhi’s air quality in 1985 with a public interest litigation case filed by environmental activist MC Mehta. In a landmark 1998 decision, the court mandated that all public buses in Delhi be converted to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) instead of diesel. Over time, the court’s focus expanded to other pollutants, including industrial pet coke and diesel generators.
It was not until 2017, however, that the Supreme Court turned its attention to the specific issue of stubble burning. Spurred by a bench led by justice Madan B Lokur (since retired), the court directed the Centre to take action. A task force was set up, and one of its key recommendations was to incentivise farmers by ₹100 per quintal for not growing non-basmati rice, a common source of crop residue. Although this recommendation was endorsed by the court, enforcement was left to the discretion of the Centre and the states.
As the situation continued to worsen, the court increased its scrutiny in November 2019. Justice Arun Mishra (since retired), leading a bench, mandated that all levels of the state administration, from chief secretaries to local police, would be held accountable for incidents of stubble burning. The court’s directive emphasised the importance of enforcing citizens’ right to clean air, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. “Time has come when we have to fix the accountability for this kind of situation which has arisen and is destroying right to life itself in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it underlined.
While the court’s order targeted enforcement, it also recognised that punitive measures alone were not a sustainable solution. Following interventions from farming groups, the court instructed the states to supply farmers with the necessary equipment to manage crop residue. However, these ambitious orders largely remained unimplemented, as satellite images indicated an increase in stubble burning incidents across the National Capital Region (NCR) states.
In response, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a high-level committee to explore technologies for crop residue management. While lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic temporarily improved air quality, the court in 2020 reiterated the need for a comprehensive, long-term strategy to curb stubble burning.
ALSO READ- ‘Sad for democracy’: Sonam Wangchuk after Delhi Police detain silent protesters
Formation of the Commission for Air Quality Management
In the later part of 2020, the administrational apathy towards stubble burning and the resultant impact on people’s health, became the focus of another PIL filed by a minor petitioner Aditya Dubey and another. This matter was taken up by a separate bench of the top court. In October 2020, a committee headed by former top court judge, Justice Madan B Lokur was constituted to act as a one-man commission to conduct field visits and take emergent steps to curb stubble fires. The trigger for such a direction was the possible connection between poor air quality and spike in Covid-19 deaths that the petition highlighted.
In October 2020, the Centre replaced the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) with the CAQM, tasking it with monitoring and regulating air quality in the NCR and surrounding areas. The new commission was given broad powers under the CAQM Act of 2021 to take action against polluters, impose fines and mandate the closure of offending entities. Prior to this, the order appointing justice Lokur Committee was put on hold at the Centre’s request.
The establishment of the CAQM initially appeared to address the issue by centralising oversight and empowering the commission to enforce pollution control measures. For two years, the CAQM was responsible for supervising Delhi’s air quality, with little need for judicial intervention. However, as stubble burning incidents resumed in November 2023, it became clear that the problem remained far from resolved.
Supreme Court criticises CAQM for inaction
With the recurrence of farm fires, a Supreme Court bench, headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (since retired), expressed frustration at the lack of progress in an order in November 2023. Observing that Delhi residents had been exposed to hazardous air for years, the court remarked: “This has been the ongoing process for five years! It is time that something is done as of yesterday.”
The court directed neighbouring states to immediately halt crop burning and ordered local police to enforce these measures rigorously. Furthermore, the court suggested that the Centre explore options for replacing paddy cultivation with alternative crops, offering minimum support prices to incentivise farmers. Paddy, an ill-suited crop for the region, consumes significant water resources, thus straining the area’s water table.
To address the complexity of the issue, the Supreme Court instructed the cabinet secretary to convene a meeting with state representatives and stakeholders to devise both short- and long-term strategies. The court also suggested marking farmers’ revenue records to reflect instances of non-compliance and advocated for a cost-sharing model to provide farmers with stubble management equipment.
Progress made but issues persist
Following justice Kaul’s retirement, the matter landed before a bench led by justice Abhay S Oka, which started taking stock of the measures taken by the CAQM.
The CAQM reported in September this year that stubble burning incidents had decreased by over 48% in Punjab and 67% in Haryana compared to 2021. However, recent figures reveal that stubble burning incidents continue, with over 200 cases reported in just 15 days in September.
The court responded by holding the CAQM accountable for its inaction, questioning whether the commission was doing more than simply holding meetings and issuing directives. Noting that the CAQM Act authorises the commission to prosecute violators with fines up to ₹1 crore, the court asked if any penalties had been enforced under this provision.
Justice Oka remarked: “Nothing will happen unless you start criminal prosecution. Unless people know that there will be prosecution, farm fires will not stop, and they will not even use the machinery to remove stubble.”
ALSO READ- Baba Siddique murder: Third accused arrested from Pune, had hired shooters
In a detailed response to the court earlier this month, the CAQM highlighted recent progress, including the disbursal of funds for alternative stubble uses and the scheduling of review meetings with local officials. Assisted by senior advocate Aparajita Singh as amicus curiae, the court, however, criticised the commission’s approach, observing that the CAQM’s sub-committees had met only 11 times this year.
Doubtful of the CAQM’s expertise, the court suggested the possibility of appointing independent air quality experts to the commission under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. It will take up the matter again later this month.
The persistent issue of stubble burning underscores that the problem is not due to a lack of legislation but rather the inefficacy in enforcement. While the CAQM Act gives the commission extensive powers to address air pollution, the slow progress in reducing stubble burning incidents highlights the need for stronger enforcement and accountability. The CAQM must utilise its legal authority to ensure compliance, prosecute violators, and work collaboratively with states to implement solutions that address both environmental and economic concerns.
The issue of stubble burning encompasses various complex dimensions, particularly the delicate position that states find themselves in when it comes to prosecuting farmers. This dynamic creates a challenging situation. While the need for decisive action to curb pollution is clear, enforcement against farmers could lead to widespread unrest and potentially alienate a powerful electoral constituency. This political predicament complicates the states’ ability to enforce anti-pollution measures effectively.
The Supreme Court’s interventions have underscored the urgent need for an effective response to stubble burning, which continues to undermine Delhi’s air quality each winter. As it stands, the CAQM has the tools to bring about change, but without stringent enforcement, the problem of stubble burning will likely persist, leaving Delhi’s residents to face another season of toxic air.