21 Nov 2023 10:55 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) suggested excluding farmers burning their stubble from the purview of the minimum support price (MSP) infrastructure, as a part of a carrot-and-stick policy to disincentivise stubble burning in Punjab and other states adjacent to Delhi. It also recommended completely subsidising baling machines for poor farmers and financing their operating costs to convert stubble into a useful byproduct that could then be sold for a profit by the state government.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a batch of pleas raising concerns over the deteriorating air quality in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR). The region typically faces heightened pollution during the winter months, largely due to factors such as stubble burning in neighbouring states.
In October, the court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to submit a report detailing the steps taken to tackle the worsening air quality in and around the national capital. Later in the same month, the commission submitted its report implicating stubble burning as a leading cause of air pollution in Delhi, following which the governments of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi were directed to outline the measures adopted to combat air pollution, particularly concerning crop burning.
Earlier this month, the court came down heavily on the governments of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, and UP, asking them to immediately stop stubble burning. The court entrusted the responsibility of enforcing this ban to the local state house officer, under the supervision of the chief secretary to the governments and the police chief of the respective states. Not only this, but it also urged a re-evaluation of the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009 in view of its adverse effect on pollution, and stressed the need to phase out cultivation of paddy of a concerning variety in Punjab.
On the last occasion, the court expressed renewed concerns over the raging farm fires in the states adjacent to Delhi, particularly Punjab, urging the governments to come up with emergency measures to douse the fires now and longer-term measures for crop replacement in a phased manner and to encourage crops that do not leave behind stubble that will require burning, including alternative varieties of paddy. An ideal policy would involve a monetary incentive as well as a punitive element, the bench indicated, but left it to the wisdom of the executive.
"We want farm fires stopped, we want air quality to get better, and we want long-term measures for crop replacement. You do it however you want. We are not saying follow this solution or that," the court categorically told the state and union governments, before leaving it to them to find a solution. "If you don't, we'll summon the chief secretaries and keep them here till they find a solution. I'm sure they'll work better in their own offices, so please find a solution," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul warned.
At the outset of today's hearing, Punjab Advocate-General Gurminder Singh urged the court to direct an 'action-oriented' timeline to be fixed so that the mitigation measures may be adopted before the onset of the next season. He also apprised the bench of the steps taken by the Punjab government to tackle the raging farm fires, saying -
"We have collected about two crore rupees as environmental damages from farmers who are still violating the orders. We have created 618 red entries which debars farmers from taking benefits in their jamabandis. Almost 1000 FIRs have been lodged. As of yesterday, there is a protest on the roads...They are blocking people from accessing the fields to put out the fires. This is a law and order situation and we are dealing with it. We are going and extinguishing fires, even at midnight. As of yesterday, six districts in the state went completely fire-free."
"I'm thinking out loud," Justice Kaul mused, "Why should any purchase be made under the minimum support price system from people violating the orders and lighting fires, regardless of how this affects the people, the children? The stick must also follow the carrot. Why should people who, despite all observations of the court, despite counselling, continue violating the law be allowed to benefit monetarily? People who have been identified as having lit fires should not be allowed to sell their products under this system. There should be something that pinches. It's not about one state or the other, or the union. Let's not get politics into this."
Justice Dhulia also chimed in with his suggestion to disallow farmers who have been identified as having burnt their stubble, from growing rice. "It's a suggestion. Because the MSP policy cannot be done away with. It's a sensitive issue. You can only pick persons, but you cannot do it as a policy perhaps."
At the same time, Justice Dhulia acknowledged the unique circumstances that compelled farmers to burn the stubble, remarking, "The farmer is being made a villain. And he is not being heard. He must have some reasons for burning the stubble..."
Attorney-General R Venkataramani agreed that the minimum support price policy was a complex issue, but hesitated over the idea of a radical overhaul. The court clarified that it was only offering suggestions that the cabinet secretary's committee could examine after receiving inputs from various state governments, while leaving the actual policy decision to executive wisdom. Justice Kaul explained -
"Delhi will continue to suffer," interjected Aparajita Singh, amicus curiae and senior advocate. "Nothing is complex, Your Lordships. If they want to do it, they will do it."
Notably, the court also pointed to the disparity in the landholding sizes to explain that larger farmers profited by selling bales made out of stubble through a mechanised process, while smaller farmers found it difficult to make the initial capital investment of buying baling machines. The amicus curiae, in this connection, asked whether the Punjab government had established custom hiring centres (CHC), which are units comprising a set of farm machinery, implements and equipment meant to be hired, in particular, by impoverished farmers. She also asked, "Are they loaning the equipment for free?"
In response, AG Singh said that the central government provided equipment to farmers at a subsidy of 80 per cent. "In addition to the 20 percent that they have to pay, the farmer also finds it hard to bear the operating cost, including manpower and diesel. To address this, we suggested last time that we could all club our resources in ratio of 3:1:1. This is also mentioned in our affidavit..."
After hearing these submissions, Justice Kaul suggested offering the machinery to smaller farmers completely free of cost, taking the bales, and then selling them. "If larger farmers can do it, I'm sure the state government also can. By utilising the stubble and selling the byproduct, you can recover what you have paid for the machines."
The advocate general, however, pointed out, "The returns for these paddy straws, which are as a matter of policy, being used as fuel, are minimal. Some sort of central subsidy would be required."
"I have some knowledge about this. I'm telling you, the larger farmers are also profiting off this part of their enterprise," Justice Kaul insisted before adding that the only problem the smaller farmers faced was their inability to finance the machinery and the operations. Justice Dhulia added -
"Let the cabinet secretary consider this issue in the next meeting. Our contribution will be forthcoming," AG Singh responded.
Ultimately, the bench pronounced,
Repeating its earlier warning against continued paddy cultivation, the bench added, "In our belief, the committee must look into the aspect of discouraging the cultivation of rice, especially on account of the water required for it, and the wells running dry in Punjab. The long-term impact could be disastrous. Thus, persons concerned must put their heads together to see how to encourage a switch over to alternative crops."
Case Details
MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985