Supreme Court says pollution orders can’t be ‘forcibly enforced’

With toxic smog enveloping Delhi and schools and government offices switching to hybrid modes of functioning, the issue was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as part of the long-running MC Mehta case on air pollution.

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that its orders on Delhi’s air pollution cannot be “forcibly enforced” and that tackling the crisis would require a broader change in lifestyle and public understanding, as it agreed to take up the matter on Wednesday amid hazardous air conditions gripping the Capital.

The bench acknowledged the gravity of the situation but questioned the practicality of enforcement alone (Sunil Ghosh / HT)

With toxic smog enveloping Delhi and schools and government offices switching to hybrid modes of functioning, the issue was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as part of the long-running MC Mehta case on air pollution.

Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the court as amicus curiae, flagged continued violations of court directives even as air quality plunged to dangerous levels.

Singh told the court that despite its previous orders and advisories issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for Delhi and the adjoining areas, several schools were circumventing directions and continuing to hold outdoor sporting activities during periods of severe pollution. She said children were being exposed to hazardous air despite clear warnings and requested the court to urgently intervene, arguing that outdoor activity in such conditions was detrimental to children’s health.

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, acknowledged the gravity of the situation but questioned the practicality of enforcement alone.

“We know that the problem is there. But what can be the practical solution? You can suggest some steps. We will take it up on Wednesday,” the Chief Justice said.

When Singh reiterated that court orders were being openly violated and that institutions were finding ways around restrictions, the bench remarked that some directions could not be implemented through coercion alone.

“Some orders cannot be forcibly enforced. People in urban metropolitan cities won’t change their lifestyle easily. They need to understand the issue. Otherwise, even if we pass an order, people may not understand it,” the court observed.

Singh also highlighted the unequal burden of pollution-control measures, pointing out that restrictions imposed under the emergency provisions of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), particularly curbs on construction activity, were hitting the poorest the hardest.

The bench agreed with the concern, observing that while the adverse impact of pollution-control steps was borne largely by the poor, the primary contributors to the problem were often the affluent. “The adverse impact is on the poor, while the problem arises with the affluent class,” the court said.

An applicant seeking urgent directions to protect children’s health requested that the matter be heard alongside the main pollution case on Wednesday, a request the bench agreed to. It directed that all suggestions and possible solutions be shared with the amicus curiae ahead of the hearing.