Stubble Burning Violates Fundamental Right To Pollution-Free Environment Under Article 21: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 23) emphasized that stubble burning is not merely an issue of breach of law but it constitutes violation of citizens' fundamental right to live in a pollution-free environment, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Time has come to remind us to the Government of India and the state governments that there is a fundamental right vesting in every citizen under Article 21 of the constitution of India to live in a pollution free environment. These are not the matters only of implementing the existing laws, these are the matters of blatant violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not only a question of implementing the orders of the Commission and taking action for breaches of law. The government will have to address themselves to the question how they are going to protect the right of citizens to live with dignity and in a pollution free environment”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR, specifically focusing on stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.

Criticising the failure of both states and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to take penal action against violators, the Court last week had summoned the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana.

The bench today criticised both the states for the manner in which the state governments are taking action to implement CAQM order dated June 10, 2021 on stubble burning.

The Court noted that while the governments of Punjab and Haryana claimed that monitoring as per the CAQM order is being done by officers at various levels, both failed to place on record specific actions taken by these officers.

The Court pulled up the states of Punjab and Haryana for selectively initiating actions against the violators of the ban on stubble burning, with only a few being booked in FIRs and most other having to pay only a nominal fine. "So you impose nominal fines. You have given license to people to commit breach", Justice Oka remarked.

The Chief Secretary of Haryana claimed that 5,153 Nodal Officers had been appointed, leading to a significant reduction in fires—from 9,800 in previous years to 655 this year. He explained that out of these 655 cases, 200 were found to be false upon inspection. However, the court pointed out that out of over 400 cases of stubble burning, FIRs were registered only against 93 persons.

“There is no machinery under amended section 15 EPA. You are collecting compensation under Section 15 EPA deliberately so that it can later be quashed in appeal…This is all eyewash going on. Is there some policy devised by you? Some people are arrested but some are only fined?”, the Court questioned Chief Secretary of Haryana.

“We find that selective action is being taken in some. In some cases the governments are claiming that they have recovered compensation and in few cases they are claiming that they have registered FIRs. Environmental compensation stated to be recovered is minimal…The manner in which action is being taken by the governments is reflected from the figures given across the bar. For example this year there are 1084 identified cases of stubble burning in Punjab. However compensation has been recovered from only 473 persons. In Haryana there are 419 cases identified but FIR has been lodged only against 93 wrongdoers and in the case of 328 wrongdoers, nominal compensation has been recovered. Prima facie it appears to us that the penal provisions are not being consistently implemented by both the states”, the Court observed in its order.

Justice Oka also raised concern about political reluctance in prosecuting farmers. “If these governments are really interested in implementing the law, there will have been at least one prosecution. Advocate General last time has clearly said maybe for political reasons they find it difficult to take action against the farmers. Obviously it is political. What else is it?”

The bench questioned the Punjab Chief Secretary as well as the Advocate General regarding a false statement made in the hearing on October 3, where it was claimed that a proposal seeking funds for tractors and drivers for farmers had been sent to the central government. On October 16, the Court had noted that no such proposal had been submitted to the centre.

Today, AG Gurminder Singh told the Court that such a proposal has now been sent to the Centre. The Court directed the Union Government to address the State of Punjab's request for additional funds to provide tractors, drivers, and diesel to small farmers and take a decision within two weeks.

The matter is listed for further hearing on November 4.

Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India