The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the closure of schools amid Delhi’s worsening air pollution, calling the crisis a recurring issue. It issued notice to NHAI and sought concrete long-term measures to curb pollution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday continued hearing a petition concerning the alarming rise in air pollution across Delhi-NCR, addressing issues ranging from school closures, construction bans, welfare of construction workers, and toll plaza operations.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
Appearing for a group of parents, Advocate Menaka Guruswamy strongly opposed the Delhi Government’s decision to shut schools from Nursery to Class 5, arguing that the move disproportionately impacts children from economically weaker sections.
She submitted that while affluent parents can opt for online classes, poorer children are left at home without access to education or midday meals, which for many is the most nutritious meal of the day.
“These children do not have air purifiers at home. How is the air at home safer than the air in school?”
Guruswamy argued, adding that the decision contradicted earlier directions of the Court.
Responding to the submissions, CJI Surya Kant acknowledged that the issue involves competing concerns.
“People who can afford will sit at home, but those who cannot will be forcibly sent to school,”
the CJI observed, cautioning against policies that deepen social divides.
The Bench stressed that air purifiers are not a solution and emphasized that the closure of schools was a temporary emergency measure, noting that schools would close soon anyway due to the upcoming winter break.
Amicus Curiae Aparajita Sinha informed the Court that schools were seeking a hybrid model, allowing parents to choose between physical and online classes, which was originally intended as a balancing mechanism.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing parents seeking hybrid classes, supported this view.
However, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Delhi Government, defended the decision, stating that the closure order dated November 15 was issued due to an emergency-like situation to safeguard young children.
The hearing also focused on the impact of construction bans on daily wage workers.
An advocate informed the Court that around 2.5 lakh construction workers are registered and active in Delhi.
The CJI stressed the need for real welfare measures, stating:
“Merely linking an Aadhaar account is not enough. The benefit must actually reach marginalized workers.”
The Court emphasized that if construction activities are halted for months, the State must plan alternative employment, warning that workers may otherwise migrate in search of livelihood.
The Bench questioned the necessity of toll plaza operations during high-pollution periods and expressed concern over unnecessary litigation arising from toll collection.
“We are not concerned with revenue. These tolls only breed litigation,”
remarked the CJI.
The Court asked NHAI to examine the feasibility of relocating nine MCD toll booths and directed MCD/DMC to consider temporarily suspending toll operations, with a decision to be placed on record within one week.
Supreme Court’s Order
After hearing all parties, the Court passed the following directions:
- No intervention required on school closures, as classes from Nursery to Class 5 are already closed and winter vacations are imminent
- Notice issued to NHAI on toll plaza operations
- MCD/DMC directed to cooperate and consider the temporary suspension of toll plazas
- CAQM requested to strengthen long-term measures to combat air pollution
The Court underscored that air pollution is no longer a seasonal issue but a recurring annual crisis, directing the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to revisit and enhance long-term solutions, including:
- Cleaner industry and energy adoption
- Incentivising farmers to curb stubble burning
- Regulating construction activity while safeguarding workers
- Enhancing green cover
- Running citizen awareness programmes
Suggestions from other stakeholders were also invited.
Senior Advocate Singh, who has been associated with pollution litigation for over two decades, highlighted the failure of enforcement mechanisms, suggesting that minor grievances be addressed at the CAQM level.
However, the CJI cautioned that open complaint platforms could lead to personal vendettas and misuse.
Case Title:
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
W.P. (C) No. 13029/1985
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Read More Reports On Delhi Air Pollution