Introduction:
On December 5, 2024, the Supreme Court deliberated on measures under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) to combat Delhi’s air pollution crisis. In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Court reviewed the city’s Air Quality Index (AQI) and permitted the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to relax GRAP Stage-IV restrictions to Stage II, citing an improvement in air quality since November 30. However, the Court emphasized precautionary measures, directing the immediate implementation of higher GRAP stages should the AQI deteriorate again. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih addressed multiple aspects, including the remuneration of court-appointed commissioners and the protection of their roles in monitoring GRAP compliance.
Arguments by the Commission for Air Quality Management:
The CAQM, supported by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, submitted that Delhi’s AQI had shown a consistent downward trend since November 30, with levels now below 300. The ASG highlighted the disruptive impact of GRAP Stage-IV measures on daily life and argued that even GRAP Stage-I might no longer be necessary given the meteorological conditions driving the improved air quality. She assured the Court that the CAQM was prepared to reimpose stricter measures if the AQI worsened but sought permission to operate under GRAP Stage II for the time being.
Arguments by Amicus Curiae and Additional Observations:
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, serving as amicus curiae, agreed with the relaxation of GRAP Stage-IV but underscored the importance of continuous monitoring to ensure sustainable improvement in air quality. The amicus emphasized that the relaxation should not compromise the vigilance required to address pollution spikes.
During the hearing, the Court addressed concerns regarding the safety and remuneration of court-appointed commissioners overseeing GRAP compliance. It was noted that the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) had improperly included the names of court commissioners in show-cause notices issued for GRAP violations. The Court directed authorities to refrain from naming court commissioners in such notices and reiterated their protection under previous orders. Additionally, the Court mandated that the Delhi government compensate these commissioners at rates equivalent to Panel B counsels.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the recent improvement in Delhi’s AQI but approached the relaxation of GRAP measures cautiously. Justice Oka noted that while the AQI had dropped below 300 over the past few days, it had consistently exceeded that threshold before November 30. Highlighting the need for dynamic and responsive management, the Court allowed the CAQM to reduce restrictions to GRAP Stage-II but advised incorporating certain Stage-III measures as a precaution.
The Court directed the CAQM to impose GRAP Stage-III measures if the AQI exceeded 350 and to reintroduce Stage-IV measures if levels crossed 400. This proactive approach, the Court observed, would balance the relaxation of restrictions with preparedness for potential air quality deterioration.
Furthermore, the Court took a firm stance on ensuring the safety and integrity of court-appointed commissioners. It ordered that their roles should remain confidential in official actions under GRAP and extended their appointment as long as GRAP measures were in force. The commissioners were instructed to submit compliance reports consistent with earlier directives.
In addressing broader implications, the Court underscored that managing air pollution requires continuous monitoring and collaboration between authorities, the judiciary, and the public. The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing for the following Thursday to review the impact of its directives and evaluate ongoing efforts to combat Delhi’s air quality crisis.