Consider Having A Penal Provision Against Agriculturists For Stubble Burning: Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court orally suggested to have penal provisions with regard to stubble burning by famers in order to set deterrence.

The Apex Court was hearing a Suo Motu Contempt petition regarding filling of vacant posts in the state pollution control boards and pollution control committees.

The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the matter and remarked, "Why don't you consider it...if you have a provision for criminal prosecution, at least if some people are sent behind the bars, so it will send a right message."

Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, Amicus Curiae in the matter, apprised the Court that notice of contempt have been issued against the concerned States.

"The main concern is how are they going to manage in polluting days...they have not filled the vacancies. Let them suggest how are they going to do it", said Singh.

The Counsel appearing for the State of Haryana informed the Court about the pending vacancies. Upon which CJI asked whether the process of filling the vacancies has been started by the Haryana Public Service Commission.

Further, Singh submitted that the orders of the Court were not being implemented on the ground level as there was no personnel to implement the same.

Upon hearing these submissions, the CJI recorded in its order that an affidavit was filed by the State of Haryana and noted the pending vacancies. The Apex Court directed the State to fill up the remaining vacancies within three months.

Thereafter, the CJI asked the status vacancies in other States. In reference to the State of Punjab, Singh informed that the crop burning takes place in Punjab.

CJI suggested that instead of stubble burning, the State can come up with certain schemes to use it as a fuel.

"In 2018, the Court felt that this problem need a solution and directed the Centre to come out with a scheme. Under that scheme, all the equipments that are needed to harvest the paddy were provided in subsidy...our grievance is all the measures have been taken...but we got to know that the farmers say that they have been told to burn at a particular time when the satellite does not pass over the State", submitted Singh.

The Counsel appearing for the State of Punjab assured the Court that the issue of stubble burning has reduced to a great extent in past three years.

However, the CJI asked, "Whether you have a Legislation preventing the stubble burning?" To which the Counsel replied there was Environment Protection Act.

"Other than Environment Protection Act, is there any penal provision?", asked CJI.

The Counsel replied that earlier criminal prosecution could take place, but the same has been withdrawn by the Central Government.

"Why don't you consider it...if you have a provision for criminal prosecution, atleast if some people are sent behind the bars, so it will send a right message", remarked CJI.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati submitted that under the EP Act, there is not penalty. Under the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act, 2021, there is provision for prosecution of erring officials.

To which, CJI asked, "Why don't you consider having a penal provision in so far as agriculturist are concerned?"

However, Bhati submitted that even in CAQM Act, exemption has been given to farmers. "Why? If you have the real intention of protecting the environment, why should you look for a every five years exercise?", remarked CJI.

However, Bhati submitted that since farmers are weaker sections of the society they have to be included.

"Farmers have a special position in our heart, their effort made what we eat...that doesn't mean that they should not be brought in to protect the environment of the country", said CJI.

Bhati suggested to file a status report with regard to the matter. While, the Counsel appearing for the State of Punjab submitted that most of the farmers are dependent entirely upon farming and their earnings are "hand to mouth". If such a farmer was to be sent to jail, the entire family would suffer.

To which CJI clarified that such exercise should not be done in routine manner but only to set a deterrence.

Thereafter, Singh highlighted that to conserve ground water, the sowing season has been delayed by the Government which results into a very short harvesting period. Thus, the easiest thing available to farmers was to burn the crops.

"By law they cannot sow between a particular period", said Singh.

Later, on the request of Bhati the matter was adjourned.

Cause Title: In Re: Filling Of Vacant Posts In The State Pollution Control Boards And Pollution Control Committees (SMC(C) No. 1/2025 XVII)