Supreme Court: Delhi, Centre Must Be Proactive on Air Pollution, Even if Political Fights End

Delhi Air Pollution: Supreme Court Speaks, Calls for Wider Use of Air Quality Measures

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the M C Mehta case, a classic environmental case concerning the deteriorating air quality in the national capital, addressing the present air pollution scenario in Delhi. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan were part of the bench that considered the issue in the wake of recent political events and the implementation of measures to combat air pollution.

The war between the Centre and the Delhi government on air pollution has been on for years, with the two often engaging in conflicts. This, however, with the recent change of administration, where the BJP took the reins, appears to have dissipated. Still, as per the Supreme Court, this change in administration does not necessarily mean that both parties will be actively addressing the crisis.

The issue of air pollution in Delhi continues to be grave, with the city consistently ranking as one of the world's most polluted cities. It is compounded by a number of other sources such as car exhausts, industrial pollution, construction dust, and burning of farm stubble in neighboring states that contribute to the level of air quality to be dangerous.

One of the main concerns raised by the bench was the effectiveness of the ongoing efforts to reduce air pollution in the city. Although the change in political leadership between the Centre and the Delhi government was expected to defuse tensions, the bench pointed out that the change itself would not necessarily translate into tangible results in curbing air pollution. The court pointed out that though the bickering between Delhi and the Centre would stop, it does not ensure that either of them would take steps proactively to tackle the pollution problem. The bench also made the point that the reasons for pollution must be addressed in a more systematic manner, with real steps being taken.

Senior counsel Aparajita Singh, who was amicus curiae in the case, also acknowledged that much time had been wasted in political fights between the Centre and the Delhi government. She did express cautious hope, however, that the demise of these political wars would lead to a united effort to resolve the pollution problem, albeit there are still challenges in making this a reality.

The court was also informed about the current status of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP-IV), a sequence of measures for managing pollution levels at different stages of air quality. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati raised concerns about the continuation of certain restrictions under GRAP-IV, requesting the court to grant permission to ease some of these measures in light of air quality improvement.

GRAP-IV restrictions comprise curbs on construction work, restricting vehicle movement, and closing industries during high levels of air pollution. Bhati argued that since the air quality was improving, some of the restrictions would no longer be required. But the bench advised him that it would consider the matter in further detail on February 17 and asked the law officer to present a fresh chart of the Air Quality Index (AQI) to assess the current situation.

Further, the bench directed Bhati to seek directions on whether the recommendations of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), constituted under the Environmental Protection Act, could be applied not just in Delhi but in other cities having the same air pollution problems as well. The court highlighted the need for a broader strategy for the control of air quality beyond the national capital, which would address the air pollution situation in other big cities.

The CAQM was established to develop and execute measures to curb pollution in Delhi and its neighboring areas. The court, however, suggested that the measures be executed in other cities which are experiencing air pollution, since the problem is not limited to Delhi.

Conclusion:The Supreme Court observations and decisions point towards adopting an integrated approach to the management of air quality, intergovernmental cooperation, and a sound, sustainable solution. The case continues to be among the leading legal battles, an indicator of the seriousness with which the environmental disaster in India's capital and indeed the country is viewed. The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for February 17, when the court will take into account the updated AQI data and further deliberate upon easing restrictions under GRAP-IV, and increasing air quality interventions to other urban agglomerations.

Source: Supreme Court of India, February 2025