New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), describing its approach to the worsening air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR as “unserious”.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that expert institutions remain sharply divided over the identification of pollution sources and their respective contribution to the deteriorating Air Quality Index (AQI) in the national capital and adjoining NCR regions.
The CJI-led Bench noted that even reputed technical institutions, including the Indian Institutes of Technology, have attributed widely varying percentages to different emission sectors.
Despite multiple measures taken over the years, the apex court remarked that air quality in the region has remained persistently poor, if not further aggravated.
The Supreme Court said it had been compelled to take up the issue repeatedly over a long period, seeking inputs from experts and amici curiae, yet the situation on the ground has shown little improvement.
In its order, the Bench observed that the CAQM appeared to be in “no hurry” to either identify the precise causes behind the worsening AQI or to formulate long-term remedial measures.
Taking note of submissions made by amicus curiae and senior advocate Aparajita Singh on vehicular pollution, industrial emissions, construction and road dust, power plant compliance, and the use of firecrackers, the court stressed that the CAQM is duty-bound to bring all relevant experts under one umbrella and arrive at a data-driven identification of pollution sources.
The Supreme Court directed 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 enable public participation.
The Bench also asked the CAQM to simultaneously begin examining long-term solutions and plan their phased implementation.
Clarifying its stance, the apex court said it would not grant long adjournments in the matter and would continue to monitor the issue on a regular basis.
With IANS inputs