The Supreme Court issued a strong call to put an end to the practice of stubble burning by farmers in the northern states of Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh, highlighting its significant contribution to air pollution in the northern region, particularly in the national capital, Delhi. The Court expressed its concern during a session on Tuesday.
Stubble burning involves farmers setting fire to the straw stubble that remains in fields after the harvest of grains like wheat and paddy. While this method is the easiest and most economical way to clear fields for the next crop cycle, it results in a severe deterioration in air quality.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia underscored Delhi’s ongoing exposure to hazardous air quality and stated that while stubble burning might not be the sole cause of air pollution, it is a significant contributor.
The Court firmly asserted the need to cease this practice, emphasizing that Delhi cannot endure its current state any longer.
“Stubble burning must go,” Justice Dhulia declared.
“We are not saying it is the only contributor, but it is a substantial one,” Justice Kaul added.
As an interim solution, the Court directed that the local Station House Officer (SHO) be held accountable for addressing incidents of stubble burning, with oversight from the Chief Secretary of the respective State.
The Court also took note of a suggestion that stubble from paddy crops could be used to produce ethanol rather than being burned.
The Court’s discussion occurred during a hearing regarding various environmental issues. Advocate Aparajita Singh referred to an Air Quality Management (AQM) report, highlighting the persistent annual occurrence of stubble burning fires.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stressed that the timing of stubble burning might be the primary issue and asserted that paddy should not have been cultivated in Punjab due to its adverse impact on groundwater levels.
Besides addressing concerns about stubble burning emissions, the Court questioned the continuation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for paddy.
“The crop is destroying the water table of the State. The problem just goes on each year,” remarked the Court.
The Court further noted the inconsistency between the government’s promotion of millets and its allowance of paddy cultivation, which damages the groundwater in the State.
The Court also raised concerns about adherence to the Food Security Act, suggesting that switching to alternative crops might be encouraged if MSP is not provided for paddy, aligning with the Central government’s goal of promoting the cultivation of traditional crops like millets.
The case is scheduled for its next hearing on November 10.
