Jailing Farmers Who Indulge In Stubble Burning Will Send Right Message : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Penal Provision

The Supreme Court today expressed the need to prosecute those farmers who engage in stubble burning, which contributes to air pollution in Delhi-NCR during the winter season. The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while hearing the issue of Air Pollution in Delhi-NCR, asked whether there were penal provisions to criminalise stubble burning. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, submitted that the CAQM Act includes penal provisions against the erring officers. She clarified that the Environment Protection Act does not have any such penal provisions against stubble burning. The CJI interjected, noting that one official may not be able to keep track of the actions of various agriculturists under his block. He stressed that having penal provisions against individuals burning the stubble will be an effective deterrent. He said : "It will be difficult for an officer at a broad level to monitor so many villages. If he finds that some of the argiculterers are violating this condition, then you should send at least some people behind the bar, it will send the right message. Why don't you consider having a penal provision even in so far argiculterers are concerned." The ASG clarified that the withdrawal of prosecution was because of the national policy, considering they were farmers. The CJI said, "Farmers have a special place in our heart, because of their efforts we are getting what we eat, but that doesn't mean that they should not be brought in, in order to protect the environment of the country." The CJI asked the Union to consider deliberating on this issue with all the stakeholders, else the Court may issue a mandamus in this regard. He stressed, " You consider it, else we will issue a mandamus. You cannot just withdraw the prosecution, only looking at a 5-year exercise." CJI also referred to reports that crop stubble can be used as bio-fuel.Prosecuting & Arresting Small-Scale Farmers Counterproductive As Their Families' Livelihood Will Be Affected: State Of PunjabSr Advocate Rahul Mehra, the counsel for the state of Punjab, submitted that there is a mechanism of 'red entry' in place, which was a bigger deterrent than prosecutions. If a farmer is under the red entry, he will not be able to access grain markets and the online portal.He stressed that arresting small-scale farmers would adversely affect the livelihood of their families. "The majority of the farmers are hand-to-mouth; these are small farmers. For big farmers, surely some measure has to be taken, but for a person who only has a land of one hectare, for him that is his view all and end all - this is his livelihood, now if you pick him up and put him behind bars, 5 people who are dependent on him also suffer." To which the CJI clarified, "We are not saying that do it as a routine, we are only saying that if it is done on (inaudible) basis, then it will act as a deterrent." Mehra said that as a result of the various orders passed by the Supreme Court, the incidents of stubble burning have come down considerably over the years. He asserted that the incidents will be far lesser this year too.Sr Advocate Apparajita Singh, appearing as the amicus curiae, informed the bench that the farmers have delayed the process of sowing the paddy in order to conserve groundwater. Because of the delayed sowing in the summer season, the farmers then burn the stubble to ensure a quick harvest as the harvesting period between two crops shrinks to two months. The matter was ultimately adjourned after ASG sought to produce status reports.Case Details : IN RE : FILLING OF VACANT POSTS IN THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEES Versus SMC(C) No. 1/2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Jailing Farmers Who Indulge In Stubble Burning Will Send Right Message : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Consider Penal Provision

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Farmers have a special place in our hearts, but it shoudln't mean they are not immune, the Court said.

Tags