Supreme Court Balances Environmental Concerns with Development in Delhi's Air Pollution Crisis

Refusing a blanket ban on construction in Delhi and the National Capital Region despite 'very poor' AQI, the Supreme Court on Monday stated that environmental concerns need to be balanced with development.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Of India BR Gavai, indicated its reluctance to issue "bold directions" to curb the rapidly rising pollution levels in Delhi, while acknowledging that the court does not consist of experts.

The Bench also requested a plan from the Centre by November 19 that addresses the air pollution crisis. Emphasizing the ineffectiveness of temporary solutions, the top court insisted that the Centre must formulate long-term strategies to tackle this persistent issue.

The Bench observed that hundreds of thousands of families depend on construction and related activities for their livelihood, and implementing a comprehensive ban would result in severe socio-economic repercussions.

"We are no experts," the CJI remarked, adding that environmental protections must be harmonized with development needs.

The Court also reaffirmed the structured implementation of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), which introduces restrictions progressively based on pollution levels.

Representing the Union government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that pollution standards followed in developed nations cannot be directly applied to developing economies like India. "When you compare a developed country with a developing country, the same measures cannot apply," she stated. She noted that countries like the US have already completed their industrialization process.

The ASG informed the Court that the Union Environment Minister had met with Delhi-NCR environment ministers on November 11, and another meeting would soon outline immediate measures.

In response to the Court's inquiry regarding a comprehensive construction ban, the Centre explained that the challenge lies in determining how much pollution can be reduced without infringing on human rights.

The Supreme Court requested detailed responses from the Centre, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) after concerns were raised about potentially outdated air quality monitoring systems in Delhi.

Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh informed the Court that many monitoring devices have an upper limit of AQI 999, making them unable to record more extreme pollution levels. She also referenced reports and videos alleging that water was being sprinkled on air-monitoring stations to artificially reduce readings.

The Bench acknowledged her submission that such equipment is "not suitable for Delhi," and directed the Union government to document the types of devices used, their efficiency, and their compliance with global standards by November 19.

The ASG contested these allegations, asserting that the equipment utilized in India is "one of the best in the world."

Intervener Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to adopt stricter air quality benchmarks, comparable to California's standards, and recommended prohibiting GRAP-1 activities throughout the year. He also presented a comparative AQI chart demonstrating that air considered "good" or "satisfactory" in India would be categorized as "poor" under California's criteria.

While noting concerns regarding India's broader AQI categories, the Bench declined to implement California-style stringent standards, reiterating its non-expert position.

The Court formally recorded the latest submissions from Punjab and Haryana, states that continue to struggle with curbing stubble burning, which is considered a significant seasonal contributor to Delhi's smog.