In National Capital, 3000 Tons Of Solid Waste Remains Untreated Daily: Supreme Court Highlights Disastrous Situation In Delhi

The Supreme Court Thursday (December 18) strongly criticized the Delhi government for the lack of progress in implementation of solid waste management, highlighting a gap of 3,000 metric tons per day between the waste generated (11,000 tons) and the waste treated in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area.

“With some degree of sadness we are recording that in the capital city everyday 3000 tons of solid waste is being generated which is not capable of being treated and therefore there is illegal dumping. Perhaps someday this court will have to take a call on stopping some kind of development activities in the city so that the generation of solid waste can be controlled”, the Court observed.

“See this is a very disastrous situation in capital city. Therefore no point in having heated debates in court. This is actually to say the least is shameful, in capital city this happens”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih expressed disappointment over the authorities' failure to implement innovative solutions to bridge the waste treatment gap and to implement Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

“This is a shocking state of affairs that in Municipal Corporation area of the capital city everyday there is generation of 3000 tons of untreated municipal solid waste. We expected the Delhi government and all the authorities to come out with innovative measures to bridge this gap. One can imagine the drastic effect of generation of 3000 tons of solid waste everyday which remains untreated on the environment.”, the Court observed.

The Court flagged the dumping of 3,800 tons of waste daily at Ghazipur and Bhalswa, directing the government to submit a detailed affidavit by January 15, 2025, outlining measures to prevent fires and mitigate environmental harm at these sites. This affidavit will be reviewed on January 17, 2025. The Court also directed the authorities to state the number of fire incidents during last one year at the dumping sites.

The Court granted the Delhi government additional time to file a detailed affidavit addressing the extent of compliance with the 2016 Rules to be filed by January 27, 2025. “The Delhi government must explain with reference to specific rules and timelines late down in 2016 Rules about the extent of compliance made.”

“What precautions are being taken to avoid fires as well as adverse effects on the environment has to be dealt with by the Chief Secretary and all other entities and other stakeholders. We hope and trust that drastic effects of such illegal dumping of large extent every day will be considered by all authorities with all the sensitivity which it deserves. The better affidavit that we are permitting Delhi government to file must deal with this aspect as well”, the Court further added.

On November 11, 2024, the Court had directed the Delhi Chief Secretary to convene meetings with stakeholders and file a comprehensive compliance report on implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules. On December 16, the Court noted that no satisfactory compliance had been reported, and summoned the Chief Secretary to the Court.

During the hearing today, the Delhi Chief Secretary, appearing virtually, informed the Court that meetings had been convened immediately after the Supreme Court's order dated November 11, 2024, to discuss the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules. Justice Oka, however, pressed for specific data, asking for details on the generation of solid waste in Delhi and the timeline for complete implementation of the rules.

Justice Oka remarked, “You are talking about facilities going to be established as per the Rules, but the generation of waste will increase by then. What is the outer limit by when you are going to implement the Rules?”

He highlighted that the government's affidavit talked about future targets like 2027 and 2028 rather than immediate measures.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the MCD, assured the Court that efforts were underway to bridge the gap between waste treated and waste generated.

However, Justice Oka expressed dissatisfaction, stating, “The Chief Secretary doesn't care about the orders of the Court. We pass an order, and he doesn't bother to file compliance.”

The Court questioned why stricter measures to reduce waste generation such as halting some construction activities have not been taken. Justice Oka remarked, “Why doesn't the government and MCD shutdown some of the construction work if it's trying so much? So that it stops further generation of waste. And the explanation must come from Delhi government. We are not going to examine in pieces what MCD has done, what others have done.”

The bench noted that the affidavit of the Delhi government was filed by the Special Secretary of the environment department instead of the Chief Secretary. Guruswamy clarified that the Special Secretary was tasked with filing the affidavit, while the Chief Secretary was present to answer the Court.

The Court also questioned whether the timelines outlined in the 2016 Rules had been complied with. It directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit specifying which timelines had been met and which remained unfulfilled, and what steps will be taken to address them. Justice Oka remarked, “Mr. Chief secretary please file an affidavit telling us which timelines have been complied with and which haven't. We don't want such cover up.”

Amicus Curiae Aparajita Singh noted the lack of progress in addressing the waste management gap since July.

Guruswamy attributed delays to pending litigation over tariffs before another bench of the Court.

However, the Amicus rejected this explanation, question why expedited hearing was not sought for the litigation. “We don't buy that. It is our concern as citizens. This is the most unfair argument made by them. How many times have they sought early hearing of the cases?”, she said.

“Your lordships had expected that they will come up with innovative solution. There are best practices recommended by NITI Aayog at least they would apply their mind to that. But they keep filing the same affidavit. And if you can't answer you blame the Amicus, you blame the court and you blame some other bench hearing the matter. This is the most unfair way of arguing”, the Amicus added.

Justice Oka remarked that the situation in Delhi was shameful there was no point in having heated debates in court.

Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India