Supreme Court questions farmers’ blanket immunity in stubble burning
The Supreme Court has urged the Centre to consider penal provisions under the Commission for Air Quality Management law to hold violators accountable
The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the “absolute immunity” granted to farmers in Delhi’s neighbouring states for stubble burning, urging the Centre to consider penal provisions under the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) law to hold violators accountable.
It also underlined the need for long-term strategies to curb pollution that leads to the toxic haze that grips the capital and its adjoining regions every winter, rather than focussing only on the “five-yearly exercise”. By “five-yearly exercise”, the court was alluding to elections at the Centre and in states.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the remarks while hearing a case on vacancies in state pollution control boards. Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh were given three months to fill posts, with the court warning that poor staffing weakens the fight against recurring environmental challenges.
“Why do you not consider having some penal provisions under the law? … Farmers will have to be brought in for the protection of the environment. There cannot be an absolute immunity,” CJI Gavai told additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for CAQM.
The court noted that both incentives and deterrents were needed. “Give them carrot, but also have a stick in your hand…They have a special place in our heart too, but that does not mean it should be done at the expense of the environment,” the CJI said.
{{/usCountry}}The court noted that both incentives and deterrents were needed. “Give them carrot, but also have a stick in your hand…They have a special place in our heart too, but that does not mean it should be done at the expense of the environment,” the CJI said.
{{/usCountry}}Punjab’s counsel, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, said farm fires had dropped from 77,000 to 10,000 incidents and stressed that jailing small farmers could devastate households. He pointed out that the state had introduced “red entries” in revenue records to deter offenders without imprisonment.
The bench, however, was unconvinced about leniency, remarking that prosecutions withdrawn earlier had diluted deterrence. “Having people behind bars will send the right message,” the court observed, warning it may issue binding directions if authorities failed to act.
ASG Bhati said prosecutions under the Environment Protection Act were no longer pursued as a matter of policy, and the CAQM law itself exempted farmers. “This is the policy of the nation,” she said. The bench disagreed, stressing the need for a uniform national policy with real intent to protect the environment.
Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh flagged structural causes, including delayed paddy sowing to conserve groundwater, which shortens the harvesting window and leaves burning as the easiest option. She also highlighted that Delhi’s relaxation of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) curbs had spiked vehicle entries, aggravating pollution.
The court directed CAQM to work with states on a concrete plan of preventive measures, observing that over-reliance on prohibitory orders like construction bans or vehicle curbs harmed workers and the economy. The matter will be heard again on October 8.
