Article 21 protects against Pollution, and Stubble Burning contravenes this Right, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's assertion that stubble burning violates citizens' fundamental right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21 of the Constitution highlights the gravity of the issue. Stubble burning, a widespread practice in northern India, emits harmful pollutants like particulate matter and toxic gases, leading to severe air pollution that directly endangers public health and degrades environmental quality. This practice disproportionately impacts urban areas like Delhi-NCR, causing respiratory illnesses and other health crises, thereby infringing on the constitutional right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. By framing the issue as a fundamental rights violation rather than just a legal infraction, the Court has called for urgent, systemic interventions, including technological alternatives, financial support for farmers, stricter enforcement of environmental laws, and public awareness campaigns.
The observations that were made by the court is
“Time has come to remind us to the Government of India and the state governments that there is a fundamental right vesting in every citizen under Article 21 of the constitution of India to live in a pollution free environment. These are not the matters only of implementing the existing laws, these are the matters of blatant violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not only a question of implementing the orders of the Commission and taking action for breaches of law. The government will have to address themselves to the question how they are going to protect the right of citizens to live with dignity and in a pollution free environment”.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was deliberating on the MC Mehta case, a landmark matter addressing the pervasive issue of air pollution in the Delhi-NCR region. One critical focus of the case was the recurring and highly detrimental practice of stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, which has been identified as a major contributor to the severe deterioration of air quality during the winter months.
Expressing strong disapproval, the Court criticized the governments of Punjab and Haryana, along with the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), for their failure to effectively curb stubble burning and to take penal action against violators. Despite the clear and ongoing impact of stubble burning on public health and the environment, the Court observed a lack of stringent enforcement measures and accountability. This criticism reflects the Court's growing impatience with the ineffectiveness of existing policies and the failure of state authorities to implement proactive solutions.
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the governments of Punjab and Haryana for their inadequate enforcement of measures to curb stubble burning, particularly criticizing the superficial approach to monitoring and penalization. The Court observed that while both states claimed to have implemented the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) order by assigning officers at various levels to monitor violations, they failed to provide concrete evidence or a detailed record of specific actions taken by these officers. This lack of transparency and accountability raised concerns about the seriousness of the enforcement mechanisms in place. Furthermore, the Court reprimanded both states for their selective and lenient approach toward penalizing violators. It noted that despite the ban on stubble burning, enforcement remained largely ineffective, with only a limited number of offenders being booked through FIRs. In most cases, violators were merely subjected to nominal fines, which failed to act as a deterrent. Expressing frustration with this leniency, Justice Oka remarked, "So you impose nominal fines. You have given license to people to commit breach." This pointed comment underscored the Court's view that the imposition of minimal penalties effectively enabled and encouraged further violations, undermining the broader goal of mitigating air pollution. The Court's observations highlighted the urgent need for stronger, more consistent enforcement and meaningful deterrents to address the recurring issue of stubble burning.
“We find that selective action is being taken in some. In some cases the governments are claiming that they have recovered compensation and in few cases they are claiming that they have registered FIRs. Environmental compensation stated to be recovered is minimal…The manner in which action is being taken by the governments is reflected from the figures given across the bar. For example this year there are 1084 identified cases of stubble burning in Punjab. However compensation has been recovered from only 473 persons. In Haryana there are 419 cases identified but FIR has been lodged only against 93 wrongdoers and in the case of 328 wrongdoers, nominal compensation has been recovered. Prima facie it appears to us that the penal provisions are not being consistently implemented by both the states”, the Court observed in its order.
Case Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India
Case No. - WP (C) 13029/1985
Order Dated: 23-10-2024
Author: Robin Singh, Associate with Pratap & Co.