The Supreme Court of India, addressing the persistent issue of stubble burning contributing to Delhi’s air pollution, has put forth strong observations and suggestions, emphasizing the need for effective measures to curb this practice. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, deliberated on various aspects of the problem, including the role of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system and the economic challenges faced by farmers.
Justice Kaul, reflecting on the situation, questioned the rationale behind purchasing crops under the MSP system from those who violate environmental laws by burning stubble. He stated,
“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 counseling, continue violating the law be allowed to benefit monetarily?”
Justice Dhulia added to the discussion by suggesting a potential restriction on rice cultivation for farmers identified as engaging in stubble burning, acknowledging the sensitivity of the MSP policy. He remarked,
“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.”
The bench also addressed the environmental and agricultural implications of paddy cultivation in Punjab, urging the government to consider discouraging this practice and promoting alternative crops. Justice Kaul observed,
“What concerns me is that the land in Punjab is becoming arid slowly because the water table is getting depleted. If the land runs dry, everything else will get affected. Somewhere the farmers should understand or be made to understand the consequences of growing paddy.”
The court highlighted the disparity in the economic capabilities of farmers, noting that larger farmers could profit from selling bales made from stubble, while smaller farmers struggled with the initial investment for baling machines. In response to this, Justice Kaul suggested offering machinery to smaller farmers for free, allowing them to sell the byproduct to cover the costs.
Attorney-General R Venkataramani acknowledged the complexity of the MSP policy but hesitated over a radical overhaul. The court clarified that it was only offering suggestions for the cabinet secretary’s committee to consider, leaving the actual policy decision to executive wisdom.
The bench also noted the efforts made by the Punjab government in addressing stubble burning, including the collection of environmental damages, lodging FIRs, and creating red entries in revenue records. However, the court emphasized the need for more effective measures, as the upward trend in farm fires had not abated.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s observations and suggestions in this hearing reflect a proactive approach to addressing the environmental crisis caused by stubble burning, while also considering the economic challenges faced by farmers. The court’s emphasis on balancing environmental concerns with the realities of agricultural practices underscores the complexity of this issue.
Also read- Supreme Court Adjourns Gyanvapi Case Hearing To December 1 Amid Legal Complexities (lawchakra.in)