On September 24, the Supreme Court expressed its intent to receive a response from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) regarding the ongoing issue of stubble burning in Delhi NCR. This follows previous concerns about air quality and pollution in the region, particularly during the winter months.
Background
Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh raised the issue before a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, referencing a newspaper report indicating that stubble burning has already commenced.
Previous Court Directives
Last year, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of controlling stubble burning to avoid a recurrence of pollution issues. It underscored the need for judicial oversight to ensure that the situation does not worsen in the coming winter.
Current Hearing
Singh requested the Court to compel the CAQM to explain why stubble burning has started early this year and to outline measures taken against officials under Section 14 of the CAQM Act, which specifies penalties for non-compliance with its regulations.
Justice Oka directed Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to provide an answer by Friday, as the matter is scheduled for further discussion in the MC Mehta v. Union of India case.
Ongoing Issues with Pollution
The Supreme Court is currently monitoring multiple MC Mehta cases concerning pollution in the NCR, which typically worsens in winter due to stubble burning from neighboring states. Previous submissions by the CAQM have identified stubble burning as a significant contributor to air pollution.
December 2023 Directives
On December 13, the Supreme Court issued several directives aimed at improving air quality, reiterating that stubble burning must cease and mandating compliance from Punjab and Haryana. The Court instructed several states, including Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi, to formulate strategies to combat air pollution, particularly in relation to stubble burning.
Enforcement and Accountability
In November, the Court reprimanded the states for their inadequate responses to the stubble burning crisis and ordered local police and officials to enforce the ban effectively. Continuous monitoring was emphasized, and the governments of Haryana and Punjab were instructed to follow an action plan to reduce stubble burning.
CAQM’s Action Plan
During a hearing on August 27, the Supreme Court sought clarification from the CAQM Chairperson regarding plans to address pollution caused by stubble burning. The Court expressed concerns over the ineffectiveness of Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) due to unfilled positions and demanded a detailed action framework from the CAQM.
Deadline for Filling Vacancies
The Supreme Court ordered that all vacancies within the State Pollution Control Boards in NCR states must be filled by April 30, 2025, emphasizing the urgency of these appointments and denying any extensions beyond this deadline.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s proactive stance on stubble burning and air quality management reflects its commitment to tackling pollution in the NCR. Continuous monitoring and decisive action are crucial to ensuring compliance with regulations and improving air quality for residents.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What did the Supreme Court request from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM)?
- A) A report on air quality improvements
- B) An explanation regarding the early start of stubble burning
- C) A list of pollution control measures
- D) A plan to increase staff at PCBs
Answer: B) An explanation regarding the early start of stubble burning
- What was emphasized by the Supreme Court regarding stubble burning in its previous directives?
- A) It should continue as a method of waste management
- B) It must cease to improve air quality
- C) It is not a significant contributor to pollution
- D) It should only be regulated by local governments
Answer: B) It must cease to improve air quality
- What penalty is outlined in Section 14 of the CAQM Act?
- A) Fines for local residents
- B) Penalties for non-compliance with CAQM provisions
- C) Rewards for effective pollution control
- D) Criminal charges against government officials
Answer: B) Penalties for non-compliance with CAQM provisions
- By what date did the Supreme Court order the filling of vacancies in the State Pollution Control Boards?
- A) March 31, 2025
- B) April 30, 2025
- C) December 31, 2024
- D) January 1, 2025
Answer: B) April 30, 2025
- What was a significant concern raised by the Senior Advocate during the proceedings?
- A) Lack of public awareness about stubble burning
- B) The role of stubble burning in deteriorating air quality
- C) The effectiveness of the CAQM’s previous reports
- D) The need for a public campaign against pollution
Answer: B) The role of stubble burning in deteriorating air quality