It was by Supreme Court, during a hearing on matters related to air pollution in Delhi, raised concerns about the increasing levels of pollution and its impact on the region. The court, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, questioned both the Central government and the Punjab government regarding the steps being taken to address the long-term issue of air pollution caused by the burning of paddy fields in Punjab. The court emphasized the need for a gradual phase-out of paddy cultivation to restore the water table in the region and explicitly expressed its desire to see an end to farm fires.
The bench, which also included Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, acknowledged the existence of numerous reports and committees addressing the pollution problem but criticized the lack of tangible action on the ground. The court set a deadline for the states to demonstrate the results of their pollution control measures and scheduled a follow-up hearing on November 21.
While authorities assured the court that efforts were being made to control farm fires, the Supreme Court reiterated its firm stance, stating, “We want farm fires stopped, we want air quality to get better. It’s your business how it occurs.” The court emphasized the necessity of taking emergency measures during the Diwali holidays to curb the adverse effects of air pollution.
Also Read : Delhi pollution live update : AAP Govt holds meeting prior implementing odd- even scheme.
Addressing the Punjab government, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation in the state, describing it as a matter of serious concern. The court reminded the government of established traditions and conventions that need to be followed, urging them to take necessary actions to address the pollution crisis.
The court also questioned the Punjab government about its decision to adjourn, rather than prorogue, the budget session of the assembly, seeking an explanation for this choice.
In its order, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of exploring available technologies to control farm fires. The court suggested utilizing technology that can immediately detect the exact location of farm fires, emphasizing that the administrative authorities should take the lead in implementing these measures. The court clarified that while it can make suggestions, the responsibility lies with the administrators to execute and ensure the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.
The ongoing case before the Supreme Court originated from a plea filed in 1985 by environmentalist MC Mehta regarding air pollution. The issue of crop residue burning came to the forefront during the course of this hearing, adding a new dimension to the broader concern of environmental degradation and air quality deterioration.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s directives reflect its commitment to addressing the severe air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR, particularly focusing on the role of farm fires in contributing to this issue. The court’s emphasis on concrete actions, deadlines, and the utilization of technology underscores the urgency and seriousness with which it views the need for effective measures to combat air pollution in the region.
