Stubble Burning | Punjab Preservation Of Subsoil Water Act Creating Problems, Need Relook : Supreme Court Tells Punjab Govt

In relation to the issue of stubble burning and its consequent effects on the air quality in Delhi, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Punjab Government to have a relook into the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that though the objective of the Act was to preserve subsoil whatever, the adherence to the provisions of the Act was creating problems of pollution.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan brought the attention of the bench to certain provisions of the Act, which prohibit the sowing of paddy before May 10. While section 3 provides that paddy shall not be sown before May, Section 7 prescribes penalty for the violation of this Act. For convenience, the relevant portion of Section 3 reads as:

“No farmer shall sow nursery of paddy before 10th Day of May of the agricultural year or such other date as may be notified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette for any local area.” It may also be noted that agricultural year is the year that begins from June 16 or on such other date, as may be notified by the State Government. Apart from this section 5 of the Act also confers the power on the authorised officer to direct the destroy of sown paddy, in cases of violation of this Act.

This results in a situation where the the paddy harvest is pushed near to the winters and the stubble burnings happen near November. “Because of the Act we are having the stubble burning issue coming here,” the senior counsel submitted. He further submitted that how earlier paddy used to be sown before May and now it is being sown after May.

The Court noted in its order that the Act has ramifications on pollution "because if the sowing takes place after a time period, the cutting of the paddy also gets delayed and then it hits the season where due to atmospheric conditions the impact is borne by Delhi and surrounding area."

"What is submitted is that when paddy used to be sowed earlier, this problem used to not arise. The adherence to this Act is causing a problem which requires the State of Punjab to have a re-look into the Act," the Court said.

The Court also observed that a switchover to alternative crops other than paddy(which is not a native crop of Punjab) is required so as to ensure that the problem of stubble burning does not recur. The switch over can occur only if MSP is not given to paddy and is given to other crops. In this context, the Court noted that the Central Government is, in any case, pursuing a policy to encourage growing traditional crops.

Advocate General of Punjab suggested that the Centre should offer Minimum Support Price for alternate crops so that the paddy cultivation is phased out.

The Court recorded the AG's submissions and expressed agreement with him :

"The State of Punjab has seen a scenario where the growth of paddy is causing water table to decline and that too drastically. A number of wells is stated to have gone beyond redemption. Thus the very cultivation of paddy which is certainly not consumed in Punjab is a problem. This is his suggestion and we do believe correctly so, that the paddy cultivation must be phased out to be substituted with other crops and the central Government should explore the aspect of giving minimum support price for the alternative crops rather than going for paddy."

The AG submitted that particular kind of paddy which is grown mostly in Punjab of which the stubble is a by-product. This, coupled with the season when it is grown and the period required for cultivation causes the problem which may arise from Basmati grown in other States. The Court said that "a serious look is required" with respect to this suggestion of the AG.

"Thus whether this kind of paddy should at all be grown and certainly we believe not in Punjab because the problem is persistent with the particular paddy which is grown and the time period in which it is grown. In fact 15 years back this problem did not exist because this particular cropping did not take place," the Court observed.

The Court will hear the matter on coming Friday. The Union Cabinet Secretary was directed to call for a meeting with all stakeholders to address the issues.

Also from the hearing - Delhi Air Pollution : Stop Stubble Burning Forthwith, Supreme Court Directs Punjab, Haryana, UP & Rajasthan

Supreme Court Questions Effectiveness Of Delhi's 'Odd-Even' Scheme In Controlling Pollution

 Ludicrous That Smog Towers Aren't Working: Supreme Court Summons Chairperson Of Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Click Here To Read/Download Order