SC presses for pre-emptive approach, not ad hoc measures, to curb Delhi air pollution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said both the Centre and Delhi government must take pre-emptive and anticipatory measures to curb pollution, rather than adopt ad hoc measures, when the air quality turns severe.

“The commission set up (for air quality management) has to conduct a scientific study,” Justice DY Chandrachud, who is part of the special bench hearing the case, said. “The problem has to be dealt with in scientific manner with statistical models.”

The observation came when Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta was apprising the court of the steps taken by the Centre between November 17 and 21 to tackle the cyclical issue of toxic air in the national capital.

Between the Centre and the Delhi government, many steps for dust control management, smog reduction, and emission control have been taken. While government employees were encouraged to work from home, schools and educational institutions were closed down. A complete ban on industrial activities was imposed while construction activities were stopped except for some specific projects.

All these steps came after the top court, in a hearing earlier this month, suggested that an air pollution-related lockdown be imposed in Delhi after the air quality index reached dangerous levels earlier in November.

“The problem cannot be dealt with on an ad hoc basis,” Justice Chandrachud said. “Someone has to conduct scientific study involving wind speed and air quality projections and there has to be a graded response.”

When Mehta informed the court that the approach of graded response was being used by the government, it was quick to highlight that it came into play only after the city suffered at least two days of dangerous levels of air quality.

“This is the national capital… Imagine what message we are sending across the globe… We should not have to wait for a situation to arise where the air quality is so bad,” Justice Chandrachud said.

Ad hoc measures such as imposing a ban on construction work lead to other issues as was highlighted in pleas filed by labourers and construction workers’ associations, citing loss of livelihood. The court on November 24 made an oral observation that corpus funds collected by states through cess could be used to provide allowance to workers facing such loss of livelihood.

On the issue of stubble burning, Chief Justice of India Ramana questioned why the bureaucracy of central and state governments was not going onto the fields, interacting with farmers, and coming up with a solution.

The apex court bench headed by the CJI NV Ramana and comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said that it will hear the case again on November 29 and will continue to monitor the situation. “We are concerned with the immediate issue of air pollution right now,” the CJI said.