The Supreme Court has directed CAQM to convene a meeting with Punjab, Haryana, and UP to address stubble burning through crop diversification, in-situ & ex-situ residue management strategies.
In a significant development concerning Delhi’s air pollution crisis, the Supreme Court has directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to convene a meeting with representatives from Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The meeting will focus on finalizing action plans for crop diversification, in-situ and ex-situ crop residue management, and public awareness programs.
The directive was issued during the hearing of the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case (W.P.(C) No. 013029/1985) on February 3, 2025, by a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The case deals with multiple pollution-related issues, including vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning—one of the major contributors to Delhi’s deteriorating Air Quality Index (AQI).
The Court had earlier criticized Punjab and Haryana’s reluctance to take legal action against officials violating CAQM orders on stubble burning, under Section 14 of the CAQM Act.
Supreme Court’s Directive to CAQM & NCR States
The Supreme Court noted that three detailed reports had been submitted by key stakeholders:
- Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Aprajita Singh
- Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (ASG) for CAQM
- Department of Agriculture, Government of India
The Court recorded that the solutions proposed in these reports emphasized:
- Action Plan for Crop Diversification
- In-situ Crop Residue Management – Leaving residue to decompose naturally rather than burning it.
- Ex-situ Crop Residue Management – Utilizing residue for purposes such as fuel, compost, or animal fodder.
- Mass Awareness and Consultation Programs
Quoting its directive, the Supreme Court stated, "We request the CAQM to call a meeting of the representatives of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. We direct that these states file responses for the above. Considering the responses and after consulting the states, CAQM will come out with its own views on the issue."
Additionally, the Court set deadlines for further proceedings:
- March 17, 2025: CAQM to submit its suggestions.
- March 28, 2025: Supreme Court to issue further directions based on CAQM’s report.
Punjab: Farmers Need Incentives for Crop Diversification
During the hearing, Punjab’s counsel emphasized that crop diversification—a key measure to combat stubble burning—would only be effective if farmers were incentivized. Two essential incentives were highlighted:
- Minimum Support Price (MSP) Guarantee
- Minimum Assured Procurement – Unlike paddy, where 100% of produce is picked up by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), there is no such procurement policy for alternative crops, making diversification financially unviable for farmers.
The bench suggested that these incentive proposals be further discussed in the CAQM meeting.
Punjab’s Response: Delhi’s AQI Deterioration Not Solely Due to Stubble Burning
Punjab’s Advocate General Gurminder Singh argued that while Punjab is committed to eradicating stubble burning, Delhi’s persistently poor AQI levels since December 2024 indicate that other pollution sources within Delhi itself must also be scrutinized.
Singh stated, "We have data on AQI of Delhi after 15th November, which was the last day the fire incident was reported. Thereafter, the AQI in Delhi touched 400, and in January, it is continuing… We are committed to eradicating stubble burning, but how much are we contributing as a State? If your lordships can just take a call on that."
Justice Oka acknowledged this concern, responding, "You are right, ultimately we cannot blame one state alone."
Non-Compliance by States in Providing Aid to Daily Wage Labourers
The Supreme Court also addressed the non-compliance of states in providing financial aid to daily wage laborers, a directive previously issued while enforcing a construction ban in Delhi NCR.
- Uttar Pradesh (UP): Paid ₹1,000 per day, but covered the highest number of laborers.
- Haryana: Provided payments to 4 lakh workers.
- Delhi: Initially paid 92,000 workers, with 2,700 additional payments made.
However, the Court found these payments inadequate and directed the Chief Secretaries of UP, Delhi, and Haryana to be personally present in the next hearing.
Expressing dissatisfaction, Justice Oka stated, "We find that the states of UP, Delhi and Haryana are non-compliant. We direct that Chief Secretaries of the concerned states personally remain present."
He further remarked, "Once we pick them, in the meanwhile, they will pay."
Case Title : M.C. MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA
