SC Directs Constitution of Teams to Implement GRAP IV Measures Amid Rising AQI in Delhi

Taking note of the drastic increase in the AQI, the Supreme Court of India today directed the constitution of teams to monitor the implementation of GRAP IV measures.

Justice Abhay S. Oka led- bench directed NCR states to form teams comprising police and revenue officials to monitor the implementation of GRAP IV measures. The bench said, "We entrust them with the responsibility of visiting entry points in the city and also generally monitoring compliance with GRAP IV measures."

Emphasising that these members will function as officers of the Court and must regularly submit compliance and breach reports to the CAQM in order to ensure prompt action by the concerned authorities. "As long as GRAP III and GRAP IV measures are in force, they shall regularly submit reports regarding compliance as well as breaches to the respective stakeholders," the Court said.

The bench, also comprising, Justice Augustine George Masih noted "Learned ASG has submitted a report dated today's date which shows a drastic increase in the AQI and therefore GRAP IV measures are in place. Our attention is invited to clause 1 of the order. We leave it to the commission to permit activities as provided in clause one of the said order at the appropriate stage.

While appreciating the work done by court commissioners, the court said, " We must record our appreciation for the work done by the advocates who have acted as court commissioners. Appointing members of the bar to monitor the implementation of GRAP 4 is an ad-hoc measure."

Regarding the issue of firecracker bans, the Court directed the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to implement a complete ban on firecrackers similar to Delhi. "We direct Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to impose a similar ban to that imposed by Delhi," it directed.

On Friday, the Supreme Court had reiterated that GRAP Stage II, along with certain additional measures from Stage III, will remain in place until further orders. The same bench had approved the recommendations of the sub-committee, which were mentioned in the note submitted by the CAQM.

On December 5, while taking note of the downward trend in the Air Quality Index (AQI), the Supreme Court had allowed the relaxation of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) Stage IV measures to GRAP Stage II. The court had also directed CAQM to incorporate certain additional measures from Stage III.

During the last hearing, the Supreme Court had reiterated that Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) IV will remain in effect in the Delhi NCR region until a consistent downward trend in the AQI is observed. ASG Aishwarya Bhati brought the court's attention to the 'downward trend in AQI levels'. Aligning with the said view, Amicus Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh also called for GRAP 4 relaxation while pressing for the need for implementation of measures.

On Monday, the Supreme Court pulled up the Delhi government for its inadequate implementation of GRAP IV measures. It further highlighted that the CAQM had outlined mitigating measures and decided to implement them. Accordingly, the court directed the commission to communicate these measures to all concerned authorities and to coordinate efforts to ensure their smooth implementation.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had made it clear that all GRAP-4 measures, except for the measures modified with respect to schools, will continue to operate until Monday. The court went through the compliance report submitted by the commission and remarked, "Hardly anything was done by the police. Complete failure." The court also highlighted that the authorities failed to stop the entry of trucks in the NCR region.

As the bench expressed dissatisfaction over the failure of authorities to implement GRAP 4 measures, it accordingly directed the CAQM to hold a meeting and provide suggestions regarding the transition from GRAP 4 to GRAP 3 or GRAP 2, adding that it is not necessary for all measures in GRAP 4 to be dispensed with. The court said there can be a combination of measures from GRAP 3 and GRAP 4.

Earlier it had refused to relax the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP)-IV measures put in place to curb the worsening air quality. However, the court had directed the CAQM to reassess the restrictions placed on physical classes of schools, colleges, and educational institutions, which were suspended last week.

On 23 November, the Supreme Court had appointed 13 members of the Bar as court commissioners to visit the truck entry points and verify whether it was being enforced properly.

A week back, the Supreme Court had issued a circular advising all to ensure the wearing of masks and taking health measures as the air quality is worsening in the Delhi NCR region. Recently, the Supreme Court had directed all governments in the NCR region to strictly implement Stage 4 of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP).

While emphasising that the GRAP 4 will remain in force even if AQI drops below 400, the same bench had observed, "The learned amicus stated that AQI crossed 400 on 12 November. Instead of immediately invoking Stage 3, the Commission directed its implementation from 14 November. The same is the case with stage 4 which was implemented on November 17."

On 11 November, the court had expressed surprise over the delay in imposing the firecracker ban, noting that 'no religion promotes any activity that contributes to pollution or compromises the health of people."

The Supreme Court had while taking note of rampant stubble burning, upheld the right to a pollution-free environment while observing that 'stubble burning is not merely a violation of law but an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.'

In November last year, the Supreme Court had pulled up the governments of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, and UP, asking them to immediately stop stubble burning.

In reference to the worsening of the condition in Delhi NCR, the Supreme Court had remarked that a huge number of taxis were found on Delhi roads, with only one passenger onboard.

Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India