Introduction:
The Supreme Court, in the ongoing case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 013029 / 1985), issued significant directions on February 3, 2025, addressing the persistent issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR. The case, originally filed by environmentalist M.C. Mehta, has become a cornerstone litigation in India’s fight against environmental degradation. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan examined multiple aspects contributing to pollution, including stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, vehicular emissions, and solid waste mismanagement. The Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to convene a meeting with these states to develop actionable strategies for crop diversification and residue management. Additionally, the Court expressed dissatisfaction over non-compliance with previous directives on financial assistance to daily wage labourers affected by construction bans. The Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana were instructed to be personally present to explain the failure in executing the Court’s orders.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The Central Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, and Amicus Curiae Aprajita Singh submitted detailed notes on possible solutions to curb stubble burning. The recommendations included an action plan for crop diversification, in-situ and ex-situ management of crop residues, and mass awareness programs. The Court acknowledged these measures and directed states to submit their responses to CAQM, which will then consolidate a final report. The Punjab government, through its counsel, argued that farmers must be incentivized to transition from paddy cultivation to alternative crops. It suggested that unless Minimum Support Price (MSP) and assured procurement policies were extended to other crops, farmers would have no motivation to adopt crop diversification. The Advocate General of Punjab, Gurminder Singh, further pointed out that Delhi’s AQI remained critically poor even after stubble-burning incidents ceased in mid-November 2024. He urged the Court to examine other contributing factors in Delhi’s pollution crisis. Justice Oka acknowledged this argument, remarking that pollution control must be a shared responsibility among states and that no single state could be solely blamed.
On the issue of financial relief to labourers affected by construction bans, the Court observed widespread non-compliance by the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana. It was informed that Uttar Pradesh provided the lowest compensation, with daily wage labourers receiving only ₹1000, despite covering the largest number of workers. Haryana reported payments to around four lakh workers, while Delhi initially paid 92,000 workers, with an additional 2,700 receiving compensation later. The Court criticized this inadequate disbursement and ordered the Chief Secretaries of the three states to personally appear in court and ensure full compliance with labour compensation directives.
Court’s Judgment:
Taking a firm stance, the Supreme Court ordered CAQM to call an urgent meeting with representatives from Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh to finalize action plans for mitigating stubble burning. The states were directed to submit their responses, following which CAQM would prepare a consolidated report by March 17, 2025. The Court scheduled its next hearing for March 28, 2025, when it will issue further directions based on CAQM’s report. Additionally, the Court mandated that the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana be present in court to explain their failure to ensure financial relief to construction workers. Justice Oka emphasized that non-compliance would not be tolerated and that states must take immediate corrective measures.