Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, urged the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to convene a meeting with representatives from the states of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh to discuss the proposed action plans for tackling the issue of stubble burning.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, in its order, said: "A detailed note has been submitted by Aprajita Singh, Amicus Curiae, along with a detailed note submitted by CAQM and a detailed note submitted by the Department of Agriculture, central govt on paddy straw management.

The solution, as can be seen from the stand taken in these notes, can be broadly summarized as follows: 

(a) Action Plan for Crop Diversification;

(b) Action Plan for In-situ Management of Crop Residue;

(c) Action Plan for Ex-situ Management of Crop Residue.

Additionally, a mass awareness and consultation programme is proposed.

We request CAQM to call a meeting of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. We direct these states to file their response. After considering the responses, CAQM will come out with its own views on the issue. .then.CAQM will submit suggestions on 17th March."

State of Punjab on proposed action plan

Appearing for the State of Punjab, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, during the hearing told the bench that the state is ready to undertake crop diversification and other measures. However, he said that the farmers are not convinced of its viability, emphasising that a Minimum Support Price (MSP) and assured procurement are necessary in order to incentivize the farmers.

Mehra further added that in the case of paddy, 100 per cent of the produce is picked up by the Food Corporation of India, But, for maize and other crops, such a procurement policy does not exist.

"Ultimately, Lordship, we have to incentivize the farmer, otherwise the farmer will not be sold to an idea. Even if, with the greatest of our intentions, we want to implement it, we must come up with one document with which all of us agree," he added.

Advocate General of Punjab, Gurminder Singh, further informed the bench that the last incident of stubble burning was reported on November 15. Despite that, the AQI in Delhi has been high. He said, "We are committed to eradicating stubble burning, but how much are we contributing as a State?

Earlier Hearings

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.

Supreme Court had also refused to interfere with the blanket ban imposed by it on the production and sale of firecrackers including green crackers in the Delhi NCR region. The court had further told the Delhi Police that filing cases against people who burn firecrackers may not help in curbing the sale of firecrackers.

Earlier, the apex Court had reiterated the directions issued by the Supreme Court, including banning the use of Barium Salts in the firecrackers and manufacturing and selling joined firecrackers and other directions issued by the Court.

In addition to this, the bench had said, "We are not against any community we want full implementation of orders. We are not against the festivals but we cannot play with the right to life of others."

Case Title: MC Mehta vs. Union of India