Stubble Burning | Encourage Crops That Don't Leave Behind Stubble : Supreme Court Flags Long-Term Solutions

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 10) expressed renewed concerns over the raging farm fires in the states adjacent to Delhi, particularly Punjab, urging the governments to come up with emergency measures to douse the fires now and longer-term measures for crop replacement in a phased manner and to encourage crops that do not leave behind stubble that will require burning, including alternative varieties of paddy."We want farm fires stopped, we want air quality to get better, and we want long-term measures for crop replacement," the court categorically told the state and union governments, before leaving it to them to find a solution. "If you don't, we'll summon the chief secretaries and keep them here till they find a solution. I'm sure they'll work better in their own offices, so please find a solution," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a batch of pleas raising concerns over the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR). The region typically faces heightened pollution during the winter months, largely due to factors such as stubble burning in neighbouring states. In October, the court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to submit a report detailing the steps taken to tackle the worsening air quality in and around the national capital. Later in the same month, the commission submitted its report implicating stubble burning as a leading cause of air pollution in Delhi, following which the governments of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi were directed to outline the measures adopted to combat air pollution, particularly concerning crop burning. On the last occasion, the court came down heavily on the governments of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, and UP, asking them to immediately stop stubble burning. The court entrusted the responsibility of enforcing this ban to the local state house officer, under the supervision of the chief secretary to the governments and the police chief of the respective states. Not only this, but it also urged a re-evaluation of the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009 in view of its adverse effect on pollution, and stressed the need to phase out cultivation of paddy of a concerning variety in Punjab.During today's hearing, amicus curiae and senior advocate Aparajita Singh relied on a real-time source apportionment study of pollution in Delhi conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur to flag the major sources of air pollution - secondary inorganic aerosols (32%), biomass burning (24%), vehicles (17%), and coal and fly ash (17%). The other sources contribute less than five percent individually, the counsel told the bench. She also pointed out that while farm fires fell within the category of biomass burning, the largest contributor, i.e., secondary inorganic aerosol consisted of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium formed in the atmosphere from the interaction of various gases from a number of sources, including agriculture. Some of the other sources are power plants, refineries, brick kilns, motor vehicles, industries, organic waste decomposition, and open drains."This report reinforces the last one. All these sources were addressed in the comprehensive action plan created under this court's orders. So, everyone knows the sources," Singh said."If everyone knows the sources," Justice Kaul asked, "Why are they not being tackled?"Singh replied, "There's no will to do that. Every time the matter comes, this court cracks the whip and that's when some action is taken. All the problems have been flagged, all solutions are there. But till this court cracks the whip, nothing happens. Even on the last occasion, the chief secretary had to be summoned. Again the Court has directed the union government to intervene and come up with a solution. I wonder whether they have because no affidavit has been filed..." Appearing on behalf of the Centre, Attorney-General R Venkataramani argued against looking for guidance from any external authority or committee, pointing to the 'orderly' process of supervision, regulation, and control under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Next, he assured that a comprehensive action plan had been prepared at a meeting helmed by a cabinet secretary together with representatives from all states, encompassing the various aspects of the matter."We are aware of the statute, and we are aware of the report. We will not intervene if things work out. Why will we intervene then?" Justice Kaul asked.AG Venkataramni explained, "The implementation by the states is the issue. After Your Lordships intervened, it picked up speed...""Mr Attorney, every time, year after year, it will pick up speed only after we intervene. And another thing is the persistence of this problem," the judge countered, before highlighting the need for both short-term...

Stubble Burning | Encourage Crops That Don't Leave Behind Stubble : Supreme Court Flags Long-Term Solutions

Awstika Das

Tags