Stubble Burning Increased Substantially In Some Punjab & Haryana Districts, Yet Only Mild Penalties Imposed : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 3) pulled up the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi NCR (CAQM) for not prosecuting persons who have violated CAQM orders to tackle stubble burning under stringent provisions of the CAQM Act and Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA).A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Ammanullah...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 3) pulled up the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi NCR (CAQM) for not prosecuting persons who have violated CAQM orders to tackle stubble burning under stringent provisions of the CAQM Act and Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA).
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Ammanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the need for stronger punitive measures, questioning why action under section 14 of CAQM Act and Section 15 of EPA is not taken.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh submitted that FIRs have been registered under section 223 of BNS (violation of orders promulgated by public servants for which the maximum punishment is one year imprisonment and/or fine of Rs. 5000)
“You have taken the softest provision that is there to prosecute. There is section 14 of CAQM Act, section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act which has drastic powers. For whatever reason no one wants to prosecute people for violation of the orders of the CAQM…Everybody knows that except discussion nothing is happening. That is the harsh reality of this”, Justice Oka remarked.
The ASG said that there cannot be prosecution against the farmers as per proviso to section 14(1) of the CAQM Act. However, the bench pointed out that there is no such prohibition to invoke section 15 of EPA.
“First you must implement your own orders. This is all in the air. There are targets, action plans, sectoral meetings but the basic provisions of the Act are not be implemented at all. In 2024 there are 129 cases of stubble burning, why action has not been taken against these people? Why Section 15 of Environmental Protection Act is not invoked and why the corresponding action is not taken against the officers of the government (under section 14 of CAQM Act)?”
The bench also pointed out that merely nominal fines have been imposed on the violators. It was noted that in Punjab, fines were imposed on 42 farmers for 129 cases of stubble burning, with a total of Rs. 1,25,000 collected, a nominal sum. The bench criticized this lack of deterrence –
“Nominal compensation is imposed. Now your own records show that in Punjab there are 129 cases of illegal stubble burning and fine has been recovered from 42 persons in Punjab. So it is a nominal fine. From 42 people fine of Rs. 1,25,000 has been collected.”
“In some of the districts in Punjab and Haryana the incidents of stubble burning increased substantially as compared to 2023. However all the States have done is to recover nominal compensation from 42 and 45 farmers respectively. The Commission itself does not seem to be making any efforts to follow up implementation of its own directions. in absence of proper meetings of committee on safeguarding and enforcement, no steps have been taken by the commission to monitor implementation of its own orders”, the Court recorded in its order.
The Court was hearing the issue of air pollution in Delhi, particularly focusing on the problem of recurring stubble burning in the neighbouring states.
The Court had last week sought explanation from the CAQM regarding the enforcement of measures to combat stubble burning under the CAQM Act, 2021.
Concerns About Qualifications Of CAQM Members
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati presented an affidavit detailing 10 major sources contributing to air pollution in Delhi and the surrounding National Capital Region (NCR). These include stubble burning, vehicular pollution, dust from construction activities, dust from roads and open areas, industrial emissions, pollution from diesel generators, solid plastic waste burning, biomass burning, fires in sanitary landfills, thermal power plant emissions, and firecrackers.
The ASG then described the composition of the CAQM. Justice Oka raised concerns about the qualifications of the full-time independent technical members of the CAQM, seeking information on whether they were indeed experts in the field.
Too Few Meetings Of CAQM And Sub-Committees, No Grassroot Level Enforcement
The bench pointed out that the three sub-committees under section 11 of the CAQM Act had held only a total of 11 meetings in 2024, averaging three to four meetings per committee over the past nine months. The bench expressed dissatisfaction with this frequency.
Justice Oka further noted that despite the presence of IPS officers from the five NCR states, there had been little discussion on enforcing stubble burning bans in the meeting of Sub-Committee for Safeguarding and Enforcement. The Court noted that the last meeting of sub-committee occurred on August 29, 2024, with no further meetings in September. The ASG mentioned that enforcement and monitoring were addressed in sectoral meetings.
“There is a subcommittee on safeguarding and enforcement. The last meeting of the subcommittee was held on 29th of August 2024 in which there is not even discussion about implementation of the order passed in June 2021. Though there is a specific direction in the said order to prosecute wrongdoers under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986, not a single prosecution has been lodged. Notwithstanding availability of machines the same are not being used”, the Court stated in its order.
The ASG outlined the government's six-pronged strategy to tackle stubble burning, which includes in-situ and ex-situ crop residue management, prohibitions on burning, effective monitoring and enforcement, and plans to reduce paddy straw generation. However, Justice Oka pointed out that there was no visible enforcement at the grassroots level.
Punjab's Proposal Of Funding From Centre
Punjab's Advocate General (AG) informed the court that small and marginal farmers (those with less than 10 hectares of land) were unable to afford the costs associated with using machinery for crop residue management. While machines are provided free of cost, farmers must still pay for diesel and tractor drivers. The AG mentioned a proposal to the central government requesting financial assistance of Rs. 1,200 Crore to subsidize these costs. The proposal, supported by the Delhi government, suggested that Rs. 375 Crore would come from Punjab and Delhi each.
Justice Oka, however, refocused the issue on the lack of implementation of CAQM orders, pointing out that the state has the statutory duty to enforce CAQM order.
“We will not go into all that. There is an order passed by the Commission which you are not implementing. Money is there, machines are there, those machines are not being used. It is all besides the point. We are not here to decide the political battle between centre and state. If you are bonafide, you are talking about the proposal submitted in 2022-23. Where is the response by you for compliance with 2021 order passed by the Commission?”, Justice Oka questioned.
“Unless the people know that penal action will be taken they are not going to stop this. There is no fear. Machines are there but they are not going to use the machines. It is as simple as that”, Justice Oka added.
“Learned Advocate General of State of Punjab submits that those farmers who are holding land having area of less than 10 hectares cannot afford to engage tractors with drivers and spend money on diesel for using these machines. Therefore a proposal was repeatedly moved to the central government for sanction of funds so that tractor with driver could be provided to small farmers. However nothing is placed on record to show that any grant was sought for providing tractors with driver and diesel to small farmers to enable them to operate the machines”, the Court noted.
CAQM Not Implementing Its Own Directions
The bench strongly criticized the functioning of the CAQM, noting that the Commission had not made any serious efforts to ensure the implementation of its own directions. The Court observed that meetings of the Sub-Committee On Safeguarding And Enforcement were infrequent, with only five out of eleven members present at the most recent meeting on August 29, 2024.
The Court directed the states of Punjab and Haryana to file affidavits within one week detailing the steps they had taken to comply with the CAQM's orders, particularly the comprehensive order of June 10, 2021 on stubble burning as well as an order dated April 12, 2023. Punjab was also directed to submit the proposals seeking funding from the Centre.
Additionally, the Court directed the central government to explain the lack of appointments to the two vacant NGO member posts and to satisfy the Court that the Chairperson of the CAQM possessed the necessary qualifications.
The Supreme Court stated that if the CAQM's expert members were found lacking, it may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to appoint additional experts in the field of air pollution.
“We also direct the Commission to ensure that prompt steps are to be taken to implement its own orders by the state government and all other stakeholders. The Commission shall give wide publicity to the availability of grievance redressal mechanisms on which the citizens can file complaints”, the Court added.
The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for October 16, 2024.
Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985
Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India