SC pulls up Delhi air quality panel over failure to curb pollution, stubble burning

The court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management to file a compliance report, which it will consider on October 3.

The bench noted that the commission was set up for the purposes of better coordination, research, identification and resolution of problems surrounding the air quality index (AQI) and matters connected therewith. (File)

The Supreme Court Friday said that the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and adjoining areas “needs to be more active” to check pollution due to stubble burning in areas under its jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih said “there are multiple reports/affidavits filed by the commission” and “so we cannot say the commission has not taken any action.”

It said, “We are of the view that though the commission has taken certain steps, the commission needs to be more active. The commission must ensure that its efforts and directions issued actually translate into reducing the problem of pollution.”.

Story continues below this ad

The court agreed with the Amicus Curiae senior advocate Aparajita Singh “that the commission has not performed the way it was expected to perform considering the object for which the commission was set up.”

The bench pointed out that the CAQM Act has been “in existence for more than three years now. There are hardly 85 to 87 directions issued so far by the Commission under section 12 (1) of the Act. No action has been taken even after finding that the directions have not been implemented.” The court said that possible action could be taken under section 14 of the Act against those flouting the act and indulging in stubble burning.

The court noted that the CAQM chairperson who was present during the day’s hearing through video conferencing “states that the three committees mentioned in section 11 (1) “are holding only one meeting every three months. The sub-committee on monitoring and identification and the sub-committee on safeguarding and enforcement have been assigned important tasks. We wonder how they are performing those tasks by meeting only once in three months.”

Story continues below this ad

The court also said it would like to know from the Commission about the meetings held by the committees under section 11 (1) and the decisions taken thereunder.” It said the Commission “must also place on record details of the meetings of the three committees therein, and the decisions taken therein.”

It said that “the Commission must immediately step into action to ensure that equipment provided at the cost of the central government for avoiding stubble burning are actually used by the farmers.”

The court directed the Commission to file a compliance report, which it will consider on October 3.

Ananthakrishnan G

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram