Delhi pollution: The 40-year battle to reduce air pollution by the Indian Supreme Court

 Delhi pollution: The 40-year battle to reduce air pollution by the Indian Supreme Court

Although Delhi, the capital of India, has recently garnered headlines throughout the world due to pollution, the issue is not new. The nation's highest court has actively debated the matter for over 40 years, sometimes issuing rulings that have profoundly altered Delhi's way of life.

Its most recent intervention occurred at the beginning of November when the Supreme Court ordered "urgent action" due to dangerously low air quality in the nation's capital.

The court heard arguments about the steps taken by the Delhi government to address the problem. These steps included limiting the amount of stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, two nearby states, and proposing to only permit motor vehicles on alternate days, depending upon the circumstances. Does the last digit on their license mean? There were even or odd plates.

Although the government was given the go-ahead to create these policies, the court last week chastised authorities for failing to follow its instructions and allot funding for the fast rail system, referring to this as a "gross breach of assurances". In order to lessen vehicle pollution, the project intends to link Delhi with its surrounding cities by high-speed rail tracks.

The Punjab state administration was accused by the supreme court of failing to take appropriate action to put an end to stubble burning, and it was said that the state's farmers were being maligned as a result of the inadequate handling of the issue.

Why was Delhi behind Beijing in the struggle for air?

The Supreme Court has often taken the lead in enacting measures to improve Delhi's air quality. A few of its directives include limiting the kinds of cars that are permitted to drive in the city, moving thousands of companies that emit smoke, and caulking establishments to lower emissions. It has received recognition for taking action despite the government's reluctance.

However, many have questioned the court's effectiveness and charged it of frequently taking a permissive approach to presidential action. Additionally, others have noted that during the last 40 years, pollution in the capital has only become worse despite some advances.

In a recent essay, senior attorney Shyam Divan said that the Indian Supreme Court serves as "policy maker, law maker, public teacher, and super administrator" all at once.

He said, "To protect the environment, Americans have the federal Environmental Protection Agency, Congress, and a lot of money." Our Supreme Court is located here."

On the other hand, supporters of the court see it as a safeguard and a platform for cooperative problem-solving.

Will artificial rain remove the pollution in Delhi?

When environmentalist MC Mehta submitted petitions on three primary issues—increasing traffic pollution in Delhi, pollution's effect on the famous Taj Mahal, and contamination of the Ganga rivers—the top court began considering cases on Delhi pollution in 1984. Additionally, Yamuna.

The court has been adding new concerns to these outstanding petitions, and last year it combined a petition about Delhi's smog problem with the current lawsuit over car pollution.

At occasion, the court has also imposed severe sanctions.

It mandated in 1998 that by 2001, all of the estimated 100,000 or more public transit vehicles that are now powered by diesel must convert to compressed natural gas, or CNG.

The government made sure that the regulation was obeyed even if it disagreed with the action out of concern about court fees and being found in contempt.

The court examined minor details in its ruling, such as the kinds of vehicles that should be allowed to operate in Delhi; for instance, it suspended the licenses of tuk-tuk drivers for over ten years.

The measures did the job, but not for long. Research indicates that the switch to CNG has improved Delhi's air quality. But according to analysts, the rise of private automobiles in the city has offset these advantages.

In his book Courting the People, attorney Anuj Bhuvaniya claims that the ruling had a negative impact on the lives of millions of workers in the public transportation industry, including tuk-tuk drivers, who were never given the opportunity to argue their case in court.

He claims that a small group of attorneys and litigants have taken control of India's public interest litigation system, which was formerly regarded as one of the "most powerful weapons" for enacting social change. These individuals are pushing for improvements while disregarding the needs of the underprivileged. Demand it. workers.

According to Mr. Bhuvaniya, "At this point, if they (the court) just washed their hands off the case, we wouldn't be that much worse off because they have caused so much damage."

However, a number of judges feel that judicial involvement is essential and often effective.

"Judicial activism" was formerly considered "inevitable" by former Chief Justice PN Bhagwati, who presided over cases involving pollution and played a significant role in extending the court's influence over governmental decisions.

Although many people have been inconvenienced by the court's rulings, another former Chief Justice, KG Balakrishnan, said that the early success of the CNG decree demonstrated that judges were ready to make "unpopular decisions" in order to improve the environment.

Though the court has been explicit about its goal of purifying the city's air, some legal experts contend that some of its rulings have been dubious.

Smog towers are large-scale air purifiers that were ordered to be installed throughout the capital by a court in November 2019. Several experts at the time informed the BBC that there was insufficient scientific data to support the claim that these towers will reduce air pollution. The capital's pollution control board came to the same conclusion four years later: the towers were useless.

Still, not everyone believes that things have become worse because of the Supreme Court.

According to environmental attorney Shibani Ghosh, some of the court's actions have improved the situation locally.

However, he said that "the government has to be allowed to take the lead" when it comes to enacting new laws and developing policies.

Environmental law scholar Ritwik Dutta thinks that enforcement of current environmental legislation might be greatly aided by lower courts or special tribunals.

For more than 40 years, India has had at least a dozen more laws safeguarding its waterways, forests, animals, and noise pollution.

"Even the Supreme Court, which has assumed the lead in Delhi, only considers the case during the height of the city's pollution," Mr. Dutta said.

"But cases are once again pushed to the back burner as air quality improves."