Today, On 21st January, Supreme Court orders agencies to stop objecting and implement long-term CAQM measures immediately in Delhi-NCR. The Court highlighted the urgent need for action, shifting focus from discussion to concrete steps against the worsening air pollution crisis.
The Supreme Court addressed the escalating air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR, marking a significant shift from discussion to concrete action.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, reviewed a comprehensive report from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) that recommends structural and sector-specific interventions to mitigate the persistent air pollution in the National Capital Region.
In her presentation for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati indicated that the CAQM’s expert committee has determined that the vehicular sector is the main cause of air pollution in Delhi-NCR.
She affirmed that the Commission supports a sector-focused approach, as previously advised by the court-appointed amicus curiae, and proposed several long-term corrective measures.
These measures include the phased elimination of highly polluting vehicles from Delhi-NCR through scrapping or relocation, the introduction of the enhanced Pollution Under Control regime (PUC 2.0), the expansion of metro and railway networks, the development of additional Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) corridors, a revision of the electric vehicle policy, and increased incentives for scrapping older vehicles.
Aparajita Singh, the amicus curiae, urged the Court to insist that authorities establish clear timelines for the implementation of these measures.
In response, the ASG shared that a meta-study compiling insights from various expert studies has already been made public for comments to encourage broader stakeholder engagement.
The Chief Justice noted that while the Court is willing to briefly wait for further input, it must emphasize that deliberation cannot serve as a pretext for inaction. He pointed out that the CAQM has not only suggested long-term strategies but has also delineated the specific agencies accountable for their implementation.
Calling on all parties mentioned in the CAQM report to submit their action plans, the CJI remarked,
“There can be no doubt that these long-term measures need to be given effect without delay,”
The Court set a four-week timeline for compliance and firmly stated it would not entertain objections to the measures, focusing solely on implementation.
The Bench also acknowledged CAQM’s recommendations aimed at reducing vehicular congestion entering Delhi, which included suggestions related to toll plazas and traffic management beyond Gurugram.
The Chief Justice directed the relevant agencies, particularly the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and neighboring state authorities, to act promptly on these recommendations.
Emphasizing the necessity for coordinated action among Delhi authorities and surrounding states to tackle the widespread pollution crisis, the CJI asserted,
“We don’t need objections. All we need is implementation,”
The Court further invited the amicus curiae to propose any additional long-term measures, specifying that the CAQM would review and incorporate them if deemed necessary. In a prior hearing earlier this month, the Court had expressed significant dissatisfaction with the ongoing air pollution in Delhi-NCR, criticising delays, a lack of clarity regarding causes, and the absence of effective long-term solutions.
The Bench made it clear that it would address the matter continuously, on an issue-by-issue basis, and would not grant extensive adjournments as requested by the Union government.
Earlier, On December 17, 2025, the Court, referring to air pollution as an “annual feature,” stated that it was time to move beyond temporary solutions and develop a phased, long-term plan. It had instructed the CAQM to reassess long-term measures addressing urban mobility, industry and energy, stubble burning and farmer incentives, construction regulation with alternative employment, household pollution, green cover, public awareness, public transport enhancement, and other pertinent areas.
The Bench also emphasized the need for coordinated action from Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan through a unified NCR-wide body.
Additionally, On December 15, the CJI indicated that the Court would issue orders regarding air pollution that stakeholders could feasibly comply with.
Recently, the Court questioned whether stubble burning was the sole factor contributing to the air pollution crisis in Delhi, noting that it is easy to hold farmers responsible for stubble burning when they are not represented in the Court.
Case Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India