Farmers can’t be let off for burning stubble: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court gave Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh three months to fill the posts, either permanently or on an interim basis.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday underlined that farmers in Delhi’s neighbouring states cannot enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution for burning crop residue, which is a major contributor to the toxic haze that grips the capital and its adjoining regions every winter. It suggested that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) consider introducing penal provisions to hold violators accountable, while also stressing that both the Centre and states must adopt long-term strategies instead of focusing only on “the next five years.”
A bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while hearing a case concerning vacancies in state pollution control boards. The court gave Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh three months to fill the posts, either permanently or on an interim basis, warning that delay in staffing weakens the institutional capacity to address recurring environmental challenges.
ALSO READ | Supreme Court questions farmers’ blanket immunity in stubble burning
“Why do you not consider having some penal provisions under the law? The CAQM must have some penal provisions to prosecute even the farmers. If you a real intention to protect the environment, you should not just see the next five-yearly exercise (elections),” the bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the CAQM.
“You must use both carrot as well as stick. Give them carrot, but also have a stick in your hand…Looking at the five-yearly exercise, you do not want to make them unhappy. They (farmers) have a special place in our heart too, but that does not mean it should be done at the expense of the environment. Farmers will have to be brought in for the protection of the environment…There cannot be an absolute immunity,” the CJI told the Centre’s law officer.
{{/usCountry}}“You must use both carrot as well as stick. Give them carrot, but also have a stick in your hand…Looking at the five-yearly exercise, you do not want to make them unhappy. They (farmers) have a special place in our heart too, but that does not mean it should be done at the expense of the environment. Farmers will have to be brought in for the protection of the environment…There cannot be an absolute immunity,” the CJI told the Centre’s law officer.
{{/usCountry}}ALSO READ | Over 4.97 lakh Haryana farmers register crop losses on e-Kshatipurti portal
{{/usCountry}}ALSO READ | Over 4.97 lakh Haryana farmers register crop losses on e-Kshatipurti portal
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Punjab, said the state had managed to reduce incidents of stubble burning from 77,000 to 10,000, and that the numbers would fall further. He also pointed out that prosecutions were earlier initiated but later withdrawn, citing hardships for small farmers. To be sure, while the number of stubble burning incidents in Punjab fell from 49,922 cases in 2022 to 10,909 in 2024, the area where the stubble was burnt actually grew from 15 lakh acres in 2022 to 19 lakh acres in 2023. Data for 2024 was not available.
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Punjab, said the state had managed to reduce incidents of stubble burning from 77,000 to 10,000, and that the numbers would fall further. He also pointed out that prosecutions were earlier initiated but later withdrawn, citing hardships for small farmers. To be sure, while the number of stubble burning incidents in Punjab fell from 49,922 cases in 2022 to 10,909 in 2024, the area where the stubble was burnt actually grew from 15 lakh acres in 2022 to 19 lakh acres in 2023. Data for 2024 was not available.
{{/usCountry}}Stubble burning peaks in October, when farmers are clearing their field of paddy stubble after harvests to prepare them for the next crop, and lasts for around three weeks to a month, sending Delhi’s already poor air quality into hazardous territory.
The bench too was unconvinced by Punjab’s argument on the cases. “Why were they withdrawn? Having people behind bars will send the right message,” observed the court, warning that it may be compelled to issue a mandamus if the authorities failed to act.
ASG Bhati acknowledged that while the Environment Protection Act could earlier be invoked for prosecutions, penalties were no longer being pursued as a matter of policy, and the CAQM law itself exempted farmers. “This is the policy of the nation,” she submitted.
The bench disagreed with the approach. “If you have real intention to protect the environment, you should not just see the next five-yearly exercise,” it said, adding that states must be brought on board for a uniform national policy.
Mehra told the bench that Punjab had introduced the practice of making “red entries” in revenue records against farmers found burning stubble, which acted as a deterrent without depriving families of their primary breadwinners. He argued that while stringent measures could apply to large landholders, jailing small farmers could devastate entire households.
Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh highlighted deeper structural issues, including the shift in cropping patterns that shortened the harvesting window between paddy and wheat. Because of groundwater conservation measures, the paddy sowing season has been delayed, leaving farmers with little time to clear fields, making burning the easiest option. HT has previously written about the 2009 law passed by Punjab that, with the aim of protecting ground water, mandates that farmers wait for the state’s nod to plant paddy -- something that it issues on the basis of the arrival of the monsoon. To be sure, burning also presents farmers with a quicker and inexpensive option.
In its order, the court directed CAQM to deliberate with states and draw up a “concrete plan of preventive measures” to contain pollution, noting that reliance on prohibitory orders such as construction bans or vehicle curbs caused collateral harm to workers and the economy. “We are of the view that rather than prohibitory orders, certain preventive measures are taken by the Centre, states, CAQM and pollution control boards,” stated the court order, fixing the next hearing for October 8.
The court also recorded Singh’s submissions that Delhi’s relaxation of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) curbs had triggered a spike in vehicle entry into the city, aggravating pollution levels. It urged authorities to balance public health needs with economic consequences, such as loss of livelihood for construction workers when projects are halted.
Wednesday’s hearing builds on the court’s earlier interventions in April, when a different bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka had approved an action plan prepared by the CAQM. That order required the chief secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to head state-level monitoring committees, submit monthly reports from June 2025 onwards, and enforce CAQM’s recommendations, including tagging farmers with nodal officers, providing rent-free stubble-removal machinery, and encouraging crop diversification.
Punjab, represented by Mehra, had then sought support from the Centre to guarantee minimum support prices for alternative crops like maize, sugarcane, and cotton. He had also floated a contributory fund of ₹2,000 crore involving the Punjab, Delhi and Union governments to help marginal farmers access machinery.
The April bench, while nudging collaborative efforts, had made it clear that “the onus should be on the chief secretary to implement the action plan.” The Delhi government was also directed to disclose the status of the Environment Compensation Charge funds collected from polluting vehicles entering the city.
