Supreme Court Addresses Delhi’s Air and Water Pollution Crisis, Issues Stringent Directives (13 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 January 2020
Judges: Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Deepak Gupta

Is the right to life being severely compromised by unchecked pollution? The Supreme Court of India, in a continued effort to address the severe environmental crisis in Delhi and its surrounding areas, has issued a series of stringent directives to combat both air and water pollution. This order underscores the Court’s concern over the blatant violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution due to alarming levels of pollution. The Court has taken a strong stance against the inaction of various state and central authorities, holding them accountable for their failure to protect the environment and the health of the citizens.

Case Background

The case originates from a long-standing concern over environmental pollution, with the Supreme Court actively monitoring the situation, particularly in Delhi and the NCR. The Court has been addressing the issue of air pollution, which includes stubble burning, construction and demolition activities, open dumping of waste, road dust, garbage burning, and traffic congestion. The Court has also noted the pollution of rivers in the country, particularly the Yamuna and Ganges, due to industrial effluents and sewage.

The Supreme Court has been actively involved in this matter, having passed several orders since 2018. The Court has directed various authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the governments of Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, to take steps to control pollution. The Court has also been monitoring the implementation of various schemes and plans to address the issue.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s judgment references several key legal provisions and principles:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life, which the Court states is being violated by the severe pollution.
• Directive Principles of State Policy: The Court notes that the State Governments have failed to implement these principles, which have found statutory expression, leading to a mockery of the law.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: The Court refers to Section 39 of this Act in relation to criminal complaints filed against stubble burning.
• Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016: The court directs compliance with these rules and action against violators.
• Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: The court directs compliance with these rules for waste management.

The Court also invokes the Public Trust Doctrine, emphasizing that authorities are obligated to act in the interest of the public and protect the environment.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the complex nature of the pollution problem and the various perspectives of the involved parties.

• State Governments:
  • The State Governments of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh cited the challenges faced by farmers in managing crop residue, particularly the short time gap between crops, which leads to stubble burning.
  • They presented action plans for controlling stubble burning, including providing financial support and machinery to farmers.
  • They also highlighted the steps taken to penalize those involved in stubble burning and other polluting activities.
  • The Government of NCT of Delhi acknowledged the various factors contributing to pollution, including construction and demolition, open dumping of waste, road dust, and traffic congestion.
  • They also pointed out the limitations of the odd-even scheme for vehicular traffic, as it only addresses a small percentage of the total vehicular pollution.
• Central Government:
  • The Central Government presented various schemes and initiatives for promoting agricultural mechanization and managing crop residue.
  • They also highlighted the efforts made to control industrial pollution and vehicular emissions.
  • The Central Government also emphasized the need for a comprehensive plan to address environmental issues in collaboration with State Governments.
• Farmers:
  • Farmers argued that they lack the means to purchase or hire modern machinery for managing crop residue and are often compelled to burn stubble due to time constraints.
  • They sought financial support and access to affordable machinery.

The Court also considered the arguments regarding the efficacy of the odd-even scheme, noting that it only addresses a small portion of the vehicular pollution, and that two and three wheelers also contribute to pollution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues that the court addressed can be summarized as:

1. What steps need to be taken to prevent stubble burning and manage crop residue effectively?
2. How can vehicular pollution be controlled, considering the limitations of the odd-even scheme?
3. What measures should be implemented to control industrial pollution and ensure compliance with emission norms?
4. How can construction and demolition activities be regulated to minimize dust pollution?
5. What measures should be taken to manage waste effectively and prevent open dumping and burning?
6. What is the feasibility of using technologies like smog towers and anti-smog guns to control pollution?
7. How can the quality of water supplied in Delhi be improved and water pollution be controlled?
8. Why should the State Governments and their machineries not be held liable for compensation for failing to control pollution and violating the right to life?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a comprehensive directive aimed at addressing the multifaceted issue of pollution in Delhi and NCR. The Court has taken a stern view of the inaction and negligence of various authorities and has issued specific instructions for immediate action.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardhichand & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 1622]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the obligation of the State to provide civic amenities and not to use self-created bankruptcy as an excuse for inaction.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized that the severe pollution was a clear violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under this article.
• Directive Principles of State Policy: The Court noted that the State Governments had failed to implement these principles, which have found statutory expression, leading to a mockery of the law.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: The Court referred to Section 39 of this Act in relation to criminal complaints filed against stubble burning.
• Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016: The Court directed compliance with these rules and action against violators.
• Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: The Court directed compliance with these rules for waste management.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Severity of Pollution: The Court was deeply concerned about the alarming levels of air and water pollution and their impact on public health.
• Inaction of Authorities: The Court expressed strong displeasure over the failure of various authorities to implement existing laws and schemes effectively.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court emphasized the violation of the right to life under Article 21 due to pollution.
• Need for Immediate Action: The Court stressed the need for immediate and concrete steps to address the pollution crisis.
• Use of Technology: The Court was keen on exploring technological solutions like smog towers and anti-smog guns.
• Accountability: The Court aimed to fix accountability for the pollution crisis and ensure that those responsible are held liable.

The Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual considerations, such as the severity of pollution and the inaction of authorities, and legal considerations, such as the violation of fundamental rights and the need to enforce existing laws. The ratio of law to fact is 60:40, indicating that legal considerations played a slightly more significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Comprehensive Action Plans: The Court has directed the Central and State Governments to prepare comprehensive action plans for managing crop residue, controlling industrial pollution, and regulating construction activities.
• Financial Support for Farmers: The Court has emphasized the need to provide financial support and access to affordable machinery for small and marginal farmers to prevent stubble burning.
• Technological Solutions: The Court has ordered pilot projects for smog towers and directed the use of anti-smog guns at construction sites and other areas.
• Strict Monitoring and Enforcement: The Court has directed strict monitoring of industrial areas and construction sites and has called for stringent action against those violating environmental norms.
• Accountability of Authorities: The Court has issued show cause notices to State Governments on why they should not compensate citizens for health issues caused by pollution, emphasizing the accountability of authorities.
• Focus on Water Quality: The Court has directed measures to improve water quality and prevent river pollution.
• Public Health: The court has emphasized the importance of public health and the need for immediate action to protect citizens from the harmful effects of pollution.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The High Level Committee’s decision to be placed on record with a comprehensive plan.
• Comprehensive plan to prevent stubble burning and use of crop residue.
• Availability of modern machinery to small and marginal farmers free of charge or on nominal rental basis.
• Reports on identified hotspots and steps taken for their management.
• Completion of smog tower at Connaught Place within three months and installation of another tower at Anand Vihar.
• Use of anti-smog guns at construction sites and other areas.
• Identification of dumped waste and its removal for processing/incineration.
• Monitoring of industrial areas and action against industries emitting black smoke.
• Compliance with Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.
• Status report on penalties imposed on developers violating construction norms.
• Compliance with road construction norms and sprinkling of water on roads.
• Status report on existing recycling facilities for construction and demolition waste.
• Compliance with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and a comprehensive waste management plan.
• Action taken reports on vehicles plying on kerosene.
• Report on random checking of water samples in Delhi.
• Measures taken to prevent sewage and industrial effluents from polluting rivers.
• Show cause notices to State Governments on why they should not compensate citizens for health issues caused by pollution.
• Plan to solve traffic congestion.
• Action taken reports on potholes and compliance with previous directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment and ensure the right to life of its citizens. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the State cannot evade its responsibilities by citing financial constraints or administrative difficulties. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a multi-pronged approach to address environmental pollution, involving technological solutions, strict enforcement of laws, and community participation. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the court has reiterated the existing legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. is a significant step towards addressing the environmental crisis in Delhi and the NCR. The Court’s stringent directives and emphasis on accountability underscore the urgent need for concrete action to control pollution and protect public health. The judgment serves as a reminder of the State’s obligation to uphold the fundamental right to life and to ensure a clean and healthy environment for all citizens.

Category

• Parent Category: Environmental Law
• Child Category: Air Pollution
• Child Category: Water Pollution
• Child Category: Public Interest Litigation
• Child Category: Article 21, Constitution of India
• Child Category: The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• Child Category: Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016
• Child Category: Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue addressed in this Supreme Court judgment?

A: The judgment addresses the severe air and water pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), and the failure of authorities to control it.

Q: What are the main causes of pollution highlighted by the court?

A: The main causes include stubble burning, vehicular emissions, industrial pollution, construction and demolition activities, and waste mismanagement.

Q: What steps has the Supreme Court directed to control stubble burning?

A: The court has directed financial support for farmers, provision of modern machinery, and the development of comprehensive crop residue management plans.

Q: What measures has the court suggested for controlling vehicular pollution?

A: The court has acknowledged the limitations of the odd-even scheme and emphasized the need for an effective public transport system.

Q: What has the court said about industrial pollution?

A: The court has directed strict monitoring of industrial areas and stringent action against industries violating emission norms.

Q: What steps are being taken to control construction and demolition waste?

A: The court has directed compliance with the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, and has called for penal action against violators.

Q: What is being done about waste management?

A: The court has directed compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and has called for a comprehensive waste management plan.

Q: What is the court’s view on the use of technology to control pollution?

A: The court has ordered pilot projects for smog towers and has directed the use of anti-smog guns at construction sites and other areas.

Q: What is the court doing about water pollution?

A: The court has directed random checking of water samples and has called for measures to prevent sewage and industrial effluents from polluting rivers.

Q: What does the judgment mean for the State Governments?

A: The State Governments have been issued show cause notices on why they should not compensate citizens for health issues caused by pollution, highlighting their accountability.