Farmers can't be let off for burning stubble: SC

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.

- Utkarsh Anand

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.

“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.

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 He also pointed out that prosecutions were earlier initiated but later withdrawn, citing hardships for small farmers.