On Wednesday, October 16, the Supreme Court criticised the States of Punjab and Haryana for their inaction against farmers who engage in stubble-burning. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the states’ failure to take any action in carrying out the directives to stop stubble burning that were given by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in the NCR in June 2021.
In its ruling, the court said, “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 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.
The bench of Judges Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih came down heavily on the States. It ordered that the Chief Secretaries of both States appear before the court on October 23, the date of the upcoming hearing.
Court poses questions to the government of Punjab
The court rebuked the government of Punjab for failing to act to carry out the directives issued by the CAQM in June 2021.
“You are just putting up with the violations,” Justice Oka said Punjab’s Advocate General Gurminder Singh. “Let me be candid, the person at the end of the tail is a farmer, if we keep prosecuting then…,” the attorney general contested.
The plea failed to address the bench’s observation that the State of Punjab had previously, on October 22, 2013, issued a notification under the Air Act that forbade the careless burning of leftover paddy straw.
When the Attorney General stated that it was exceedingly challenging to carry out these directives in practice, Justice Amanullah questioned if the Court needed to document that the State was incapable of enforcing orders. The AG proceeded to clarify that action was being taken and that the process was “challenging on the ground.” According to the AG, farmers who indulge in field fires have red entries recorded in their revenue records.
The Court observed that 267 fire occurrences had been recorded in accordance with ISRO practice. However, only 103 of the violators have had minor penalties collected, and only 14 of the violators have had FIRs under section 233 of the BNS filed. There are just five targets of the section 39 complaints under the Air Act of 1981. According to the State’s own figures, 122 of the 267 violators have had nominal action taken against them, the Court remarked.
Punjab faces legal action for making a false declaration
The Court expressed displeasure upon learning that, on October 3, the State of Punjab had falsely stated that it had filed a petition to the Central Government seeking funding to supply small farmers with diesel and tractors with drivers. The AG acknowledged today that the Central Government has not received any such proposal. Consequently, the Court was horrified to discover that a false statement had been made and had been included in the October 3 ruling.
Justice Oka said, “This is gross misleading by the Chief Secretary to the Supreme Court. Absolute defiance is done.”
The bench in today’s order recorded, “We are surprised to note that even after finding that the last statement made was incorrect between the last date and today no endeavor has been made to submit a proposal to the central government for seeking funds.”
The Court requested the CAQM to take appropriate action against state authorities for failing to comply with directives given under section 12 of the CAQM Act.
It was requested that the State of Punjab’s Chief Secretary physically attend the court on the following day in order to address the state’s defaults.
Subsequently, the Court interrogated Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati over the credentials of the CAQM members.
Justice Oka stated, “We have great respect for the members and their academic qualifications but they are not qualified or experts in the field of air pollution.”
As the ASG revealed that one of the members had served as the MP Pollution Control Board’s chairperson in the past, Justice Oka remarked, “You know how pollution control boards function.”
According to the ASG, the CAQM is made up of subject-matter experts who are chosen after a demanding procedure. Justice Oka recommended that in order to handle the grave problem of air pollution, the CAQM collaborated with a knowledgeable organization. Justice Oka also inquired about the CAQM’s efforts to guarantee state compliance.
Calling for a report from the CAQM on the next date Justice Oka said, “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?”
Pointing out that 7 of the 16 members were not present at the preceding CAQM meeting, the bench ordered, “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.”
Court’s observation on the Haryana government
The bench also posed questions to the Haryana government, asking why the commission of air quality management’s instructions were not being followed.
“Why are orders not being violated prosecuted? This is not a matter of politics. There won’t be any political considerations because it concerns the Commission’s execution of legislative directives pursuant to section 12. When ISRO provides you with the fire locations, you so sweetly respond that they were not located. They will pay a little fee; no one will prosecute them or take any further action against them. What’s going on with all this?” Justice Oka enquired.
“The Chief Secretary and the state are acting with utter insensitivity. If the Secretary is acting on someone else’s request, we will summon him as well. Why is it so difficult to prosecute individuals?” Justice Oka asked again.
The court stated in the decision that the State of Haryana has not pursued even one criminal action, as required by clause 14 of the CAQM’s June 10, 2021, directive. It instructed the relevant authorities to use Section 14 of the CAQM Act 2021 to take the proper measures against the state officials accountable for non-compliance. The Commission must explain the action taken against the defaulter officials.
