Delhi Air Pollution | 'Advocate Commissioners Risked Life To Report Violations' : Supreme Court Seeks Police's Explanation
The Supreme Court today (December 2) directed the Delhi police to provide armed protection to those Court Commissioners who wish to continue monitoring implementation of GRAP IV measures in Delhi-NCR.
“Those Court Commissioners that desire to continue the work will send email to the Nodal Officer appointed by Delhi Police. Protection of armed policemen shall be given to those Court commissioners. The armed guards shall be given instructions that they will not communicate the movement of the Court Commissioners. We make it clear that it is the responsibility of Delhi Police to ensure that members of the bar who are acting as court commissioners are adequately protected”, the Court ordered.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the Court cannot allow members of the bar to be subjected to risk as the reports indicate that some of them were threatened. The Court gave them the option to decide whether they want to continue the work.
The Court commended the court commissioners for their efforts. “We must place on record the enormous work done by the court commissioners appointed by the court. The reports tendered today show that even they have risked their life and face threats only with a view to discharge their duties”, the Court highlighted.
“We will consider the question of paying remuneration to the Court Commissioners”, the Court added.
The Court was hearing the MC Mehta concerning air pollution in Delhi, focusing on violations of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and safety concerns raised by court commissioners tasked with monitoring compliance.
During the hearing today, Court commissioner Advocate Aditya Prasad informed the bench that toll officials have WhatsApp groups where they share live updates about the movements of court commissioners.
“Informing local police beforehand is counterproductive. Toll officials have WhatsApp groups giving live updates of court commissioners' whereabouts. Someone has informed the toll officials. Because we inform the local police. Let the home police station of the court commissioner deploy protection. They can go where they want, they need not inform the. Because these are villages in the Delhi heartland, they are very unsafe”, he said.
Amicus Curiae Aparajita Singh also emphasized the risks faced by court commissioners. “They are putting themselves at risk. It is not safe for them to go and directly confront the people”, she said.
Court commissioner Advocate Jatin Kumar highlighted safety concerns at the Jharoda Kalan village during an inspection along with court commissioner Advocate Savi Nagpal. “No streetlights, we were sitting inside SHO car but still feeling unsafe. SHO told me that this area is of big shooters and gangs and they are very active right now. They are not paying toll”, he stated.
Court Commissioner Reports
Report by Manan Verma
Advocate Manan Verma submitted a report detailing an incident on November 29, 2024, at Asiad Village, Khelgaon, New Delhi. He observed a construction cutting machine operating at a property with a “BHEL” nameplate. Upon attempting to take photographs, he encountered workers fleeing inside the house. A person later emerged, claimed to be working for a senior officer, and began intimidating Verma. He also demanded identification and threatened Verma's presence, as per the report.
Report by Jatin Kumar and Savi Nagpal
Court commissioners Jatin Kumar and Savi Nagpal reported a violation at Jharoda toll, where a BS-IV diesel truck carrying construction and demolition (C&D) materials entered Delhi without valid documentation. The truck driver claimed the materials were for railway construction, but no proof was provided, as per the report. The report stated that the SHO of Baba Hari Dass Nagar Police Station initially denied the allegations and later justified the lapse, arguing it was a human error. Additionally, toll staff confirmed the truck had bypassed toll fees, which was recorded in their register. The report also flagged stubble burning in Jharoda village, where police officers failed to take action.
Court's Directions
Referring to the report by Advocate Manan Verma, the Court directed Delhi Police to file a report detailing the action taken in response.
The bench also reviewed the report by Jatin Kumar and Savi Nagpal and directed SHO Balram Singh to file a response addressing the allegations. The Court ordered the SHO to appear personally at the next hearing.
The bench ordered that armed protection be provided to those who opt to continue, and the guards will be directed not to disclose the Comissioners' movements.
Additionally, the Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management to depute a team to examine all reports submitted by Court Commissioners and taking action on the issues identified.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on Thursday at 3:30 p.m.
Background
On November 18, the Court ordered that GRAP Stage IV restrictions must remain in place even if the Air Quality Index (AQI) improves below 450. The Court criticized the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for delaying preventive measures.
A major issue has been the implementation of GRAP restrictions on vehicular entry into Delhi. Under Stage IV, entry of trucks and Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs) not engaged in essential services is prohibited. On November 22, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of compliance, highlighting that out of 113 entry points to Delhi, monitoring was being conducted only at 13 major points.
The Court appointed 13 members of the Bar as Court Commissioners to visit entry points and report on compliance. So far, their reports have indicated that many checkpoints were unmanned, with enforcement personnel unaware of their duties. The Court, invoking Section 14 of the CAQM Act, directed the Commission to prosecute officials responsible for non-compliance.
Also from today's hearing - Delhi Air Pollution | Won't Permit GRAP-IV Relaxation Without Seeing Consistent Downward AQI Trend : Supreme Court
Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985
Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India