Punjab & Haryana Extremely Reluctant To Act Against Stubble Burning : Supreme Court Expresses Dismay, Summons Chief Secretaries

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 16) pulled up the States of Haryana and Punjab over their failure to take action against farmers who are indulging in stubble-burning, which results in the deterioration of the air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region.

Coming down heavily on the States, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih directed that the Chief Secretaries of both States to be present before the Court on the next hearing date(October 23).

The Court was displeased that the States have not taken any steps to implement the directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management(CAQM) in NCR in June 2021 to stop stubble burning.

"The order of the commission is more than 3 years old. The problem which creates air pollution exists for decades. But still, the states are struggling to find a solution notwithstanding available statutory framework," the Court recorded in today's order.

Court questions Haryana Government

The bench first addressed the Haryana Government and asked why no action was being taken to implement the orders of the Commission of the Air Quality Management.

"Why no prosecution for violation of orders? This is not a political issue. It is about the implementation of statutory directions by the Commission under section 12 and no political considerations will apply here. ISRO tells you the locations of the fires and you so lovely say that the fire locations were not found. Nobody is going to prosecute them, nobody is going to take action against them, they will pay a nominal fine. What is all this going on?" Justice Oka asked.

"This is complete insensitivity being shown by the state and by the Chief Secretary. Is the Secretary acting at the instance of somebody else tell us, we will issue summon to him also. What is the hesitation in prosecuting people?" Justice Oka continued asking.

In the order, the bench noted that not even a single penal action has been taken by the State of Haryana as contemplated by clause 14 of the direction of 10th June 2021 issued by the CAQM. It directed the concerned authorities to take the appropriate course of action against the officials of the state responsible for non-compliance by invoking Section 14 of the CAQM Act 2021.  On the next date, the Commission has to explain the action taken against the defaulting officials.

Court questions the State of Punjab

Next, it was the turn of the State of Punjab to face the Court's reprimand for not taking any action to implement the CAQM's June 2021 directions.

"You are simply tolerating the breaches," Justice Oka told the Advocate General of Punjab Gurminder Singh. "Let me be candid, the person at the end of tail is a farmer, if we keep prosecuting then...," AG said.

The submission did not appeal to the bench which pointed out that the State of Punjab had issued a notification way back on October 22, 2013, under the Air Act prohibiting indiscriminate burning of leftover paddy straw.

When the AG said that it was very difficult to implement these directions on the ground, Justice Amanullah asked if the Court should record that the State was unable to implement law and order. The AG then clarified that steps were being taken and that it was a "challenging process on the ground." The AG said that red entries are made in the revenue records of the farmers who are indulging in farm fires.

The Court noted that the fire incidents reported as per ISRO protocol were 267. However nominal fines have been recovered only from 103 violators and FIRs have been filed under section 233 of BNS only against 14 violators. The Complaints under section 39 of the Air Act 1981 have been filed only against 5 persons. Thus, going by the State's own data, out of 267 violators nominal action has been taken against 122 violators, the Court noted.

Court pulls up Punjab for misleading statement

The Court was displeased to note that on the last occasion (October 3), a wrong statement was made on behalf of the State of Punjab that it had submitted a proposal to the Central Government for the grant of funds to provide tractor with driver and diesel to small farmers. Today, the AG conceded that no such proposal has been made to the Central Government. The Court was therefore dismayed to note that an incorrect statement was made, which got recorded in the order passed on October 3.

"This is gross misleading by the Chief Secretary to the Supreme Court. Absolute defiance is done," Justice Oka said.

"We are surprised to note that even after finding that the last statement made was incorrect between the last date and today no endeavour has been made to submit a proposal to the central government for seeking funds, " the bench recorded in today's order.

As directed in the case of Haryana, the Court asked the CAQM to take suitable action against the officials of the state for noncompliance with their directions issued under section 12 of the CAQM Act.

The Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab was asked to personally remain present in the court on the next date to explain the defaults made by the state. 

On qualification of the members of the CAQM

The Court then posed questions to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati regarding the qualifications of the members of the CAQM.

"We have great respect for the members and their academic qualifications but they are not qualified or experts in the field of air pollution," Justice Oka said.

When the ASG said that one of the members was a former Chairperson of the MP Pollution Control Board, Justice Oka said, "you know how pollution control boards function."

The ASG asserted that the CAQM consists of experts in the field who are appointed after a rigorous process. Justice Oka suggested that the CAQM should engage with some expert agency to address the serious issue of air pollution. Justice Oka also asked about the plans of the CAQM to ensure compliance by the states.

"What are you going to do with the state governments? Both the state governments are extremely reluctant to take any penal action, extremely reluctant to comply with the orders of the CAQM. What action do you propose to take?," Justice Oka said calling for a report from the CAQM on the next date.

The bench also noted that in the previous CAQM meeting, 7 out of the 16 members were absent. "Perhaps action will have to be taken of replacing those members who are persistently remaining absent. The commission must also explain to us whether in the meetings of the commission experts in the fields or representatives of the expert organisation invited to remain present. A response shall be submitted by next Wednesday," the bench orderd.

Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India