NEW DELHI –– The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), terming its approach to the worsening air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR as “unserious”.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that expert institutions were sharply divided on the identification of pollution sources and their respective contribution to the deteriorating Air Quality Index (AQI) in the national capital and adjoining NCR areas.
The CJI-led Bench said that even reputed technical institutions, including the Indian Institutes of Technology, had attributed widely varying percentages to emission sectors.
Despite multiple measures taken over the years, the apex court remarked that air quality in the region continued to remain persistently poor, if not aggravated.
The Supreme Court noted that it had been compelled to take up the issue on several occasions over a long period, seeking inputs from experts and amici curiae, yet the situation on the ground had shown little improvement.
In its order, the CJI-led Bench remarked that the CAQM appeared to be in “no hurry” to either identify the precise causes behind the worsening AQI or to formulate long-term solutions.
Taking note of the suggestions placed by amicus curiae and senior advocate Aparajita Singh, on vehicular pollution, industrial emissions, construction and road dust, power plant compliance, and firecrackers, the top court stressed that the CAQM was duty-bound to bring all relevant experts under one umbrella and arrive at a data-driven identification of pollution sources.
The Supreme Court ordered the CAQM to convene a meeting of shortlisted domain experts within two weeks and, based on their deliberations, submit a report identifying the major contributors to AQI deterioration.
It further ordered that the report be placed in the public domain to ensure transparency and public participation.
The bench also asked CAQM to simultaneously begin examining long-term solutions and plan their phased implementation.
The apex court clarified that it would not grant long adjournments in the matter and would continue to monitor the issue on a regular basis. — IANS
