Supreme Court on Stubble Burning: Farmers Important, But Law Cannot Ignore Air Pollution

Introduction

Air pollution has remained one of the gravest environmental concerns in India, particularly in the National Capital Region (NCR). Among several causes, stubble burning by farmers in Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh, and parts of Delhi contributes significantly to the rise in air pollution levels during the winter months. While stubble burning is the cheapest and fastest way to clear agricultural land for the next sowing cycle, it has severe environmental and health consequences.

On September 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India once again addressed this persistent issue during the hearing of suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Filling of Vacant Posts in the State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that while farmers are vital to the nation’s survival, this cannot be an excuse to allow environmental degradation. The Court hinted that stricter measures, including arrests and penalties, may be required to curb stubble burning effectively.

This article provides a detailed overview of the Supreme Court’s observations, the arguments raised, and the broader legal and environmental implications of this issue.

Background: The Problem of Stubble Burning

Stubble burning is the practice of setting fire to crop residue left after harvesting, mainly rice and wheat. Farmers adopt this method because:

• It is the fastest and cheapest way to clear fields for the next crop.
• Alternative solutions, such as stubble management machines, are often costly.
• Lack of awareness and logistical support from the State leads to reliance on burning.

However, the consequences are disastrous:

• Air Pollution: Stubble burning releases large quantities of carbon monoxide, methane, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), leading to smog.
• Health Hazards: Respiratory illnesses, eye irritation, and long-term cardiovascular issues increase drastically during this period.
• Climate Impact: Burning reduces soil fertility and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Delhi NCR region, the Air Quality Index (AQI) often touches the “severe” category during October–November, largely due to stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana.

Supreme Court’s Observations

During the hearing, CJI BR Gavai acknowledged the significance of farmers but emphasized that environmental protection cannot be sidelined. His remarks were sharp yet balanced:

• “Farmers are special and we are eating because of them but it does not mean that we cannot protect the environment.”
• He suggested that introducing penalty provisions, including arrests, could send the right message.
• The Court highlighted that stubble can be used as biofuel, providing an eco-friendly alternative.
• The CJI clarified that arrests should not be a routine measure but a deterrent action to curb violations.

The Court warned the State of Punjab that if stricter measures are not taken, it may be compelled to issue a mandamus directing enforcement.

Government’s Stand

Representing Punjab, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra argued that:

• Pollution levels had already reduced in recent years due to State efforts.
• The State was committed to achieving further reduction in air pollution.
• Many farmers involved are small-scale cultivators, and arresting them would cause hardship to their families.

He also pointed out that earlier attempts at arrests and strict actions had negatively impacted poor farmers.

Amicus Curiae’s Concerns

Amicus Curiae Aparajita Singh expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s approach, noting that:

• Since 2018, the Supreme Court has passed several orders, but implementation remains weak.
• Despite incentives and subsidies for farm machinery, many farmers continue burning stubble.
• Farmers allegedly time their stubble burning activities when satellites are not overhead to avoid detection.

This, she argued, shows deliberate evasion and lack of accountability.

Previous Supreme Court Interventions

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed stubble burning:

1. October 2024 – The Court summoned Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana over failure to act against stubble burning.
2. 2020 Orders – The Court directed the Centre and State governments to provide subsidies and promote stubble management equipment like the Happy Seeder.
3. 2019 Directions – A ban was imposed on stubble burning under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, but enforcement remained weak.

Despite these efforts, stubble burning continues, suggesting that legal measures alone are insufficient without effective implementation.

Legal Framework Governing Stubble Burning

• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Prohibits activities contributing to air pollution.
• Environment Protection Act, 1986: Grants powers to issue directions to curb environmental harm.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Has repeatedly ordered State governments to impose fines on violators.
• Penal Action: Under Section 188 of the IPC (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), farmers can be punished for defying restrictions.

However, practical enforcement remains challenging due to the socio-economic conditions of small farmers.

Balancing Farmers’ Rights and Environmental Protection

The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the delicate balance between farmers’ livelihood and the right to a clean environment.

• Farmers’ Perspective: They argue that without cheap and quick alternatives, stubble burning is unavoidable. Machines like Happy Seeder cost lakhs of rupees, and subsidies are often delayed.
• Environmental Perspective: Citizens in Delhi NCR and nearby regions face hazardous air quality, violating their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court’s suggestion of limited arrests aims to strike a middle path: sending a deterrent signal while avoiding routine criminalization of poor farmers.

Possible Solutions

1. Strengthened Enforcement: Strict penalties and selective arrests for repeat violators.
2. Incentives for Alternatives: Subsidies and easy loans for stubble management machines.
3. Promotion of Biofuel Industry: Purchase stubble residue from farmers for energy generation.
4. Awareness Campaigns: Educating farmers on soil degradation and health risks of stubble burning.
5. Community-Level Solutions: Encouraging farmer cooperatives for stubble collection and management.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s remarks on September 17, 2025, underline the seriousness of the stubble burning problem. By suggesting penalties and arrests, the Court has made it clear that environmental protection cannot be compromised, even when weighed against agricultural practices.

Farmers undoubtedly hold a special place in society, but unchecked stubble burning threatens public health, soil fertility, and the environment at large. While penal measures may serve as deterrents, the long-term solution lies in sustainable alternatives, government support, and farmer awareness.

If States continue to shy away from stricter measures, the Supreme Court has indicated its readiness to step in with binding directions. This reflects the judiciary’s increasing role in balancing development, livelihood, and environmental sustainability—a challenge that remains central to India’s future.

Also Read

Delhi High Court Cancels Bail of Man Accused of Raping Minor Daughter: Strong Message on Child Sexual Abuse

Supreme Court: Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot Be Stalled Merely Due to Pendency of Section 37 Appeal