SC defers review of GRAP 4 measures, says will examine AQI level on Thursday
The Supreme Court said there was a complete lack of coordination between the Delhi government, police and MCD over enforcing a ban on entry of heavy trucks
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday noted a complete lack of coordination between government agencies, civic bodies and the police in implementing restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (Grap) Stage 4 in the national capital, and decided to wait till Thursday before taking a call on relaxing restrictions to ensure there is indeed a steady downward trend in air pollution levels.
Posting the matter for December 5, a bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, said, “On Thursday, we will examine the air quality index (AQI) levels and find out whether there is any downward trend.”
The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in Delhi and adjoining areas submitted a report to the court seeking that emergency measures be scaled down from Grap-4 to Grap-2 as the AQI on December 1 was 285 (poor) after being in the severe (400+) or very poor (300+) zones for 32 days.
The court observed that there was a complete lack of coordination between the Delhi government, the Delhi Police and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) over enforcing a ban on entry of heavy trucks at the city borders, and reminded CAQM that it has the responsibility to ensure coordination between these agencies.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre and CAQM, told the bench that Grap-4 curbs are meant to be emergency measures and were invoked on November 18 when the air quality index reading slipped beyond 450. She added that these measures are extremely disruptive and have financial implications.
CAQM, too, said that the rise in AQI during the winter months (October to January) is due to metrological conditions, and since the past week, the AQI has steadily dropped.
The bench noted the variations in AQI, but said: “If we allow all trucks to come in, will it not affect the air quality? We know that someday we will have to leave it to CAQM. But we have to be convinced that there is a downward trend.”
The court said that the pollution problem in Delhi needs a permanent solution regarding stubble-burning and various other causes of pollution such as dust, local vehicles, entry of heavy trucks, biomass burning, and open garbage dumps at landfills, among a host of other reasons. It agreed to take up these issues in January.
Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the court as amicus curiae, said: “Had the commission been scrupulously carrying out stage-wise compliance? Relaxation from Grap-4 could be considered but what prevents CAQM from forming teams with NCR states for stopping trucks.”
There were violations reported across Delhi, according to reports filed by court commissioners -- in two separate instances, the court-appointed lawyers carrying out monitoring of Grap-4 restrictions were threatened and intimidated; in one instance, police personnel did not acknowledge their complaints when they questioned the entry of a truck at the Delhi border; and advocate Manan Verma said he was threatened and intimated for questioning an ongoing construction at a government residence in Asiad Village.
The bench called these reports “shocking”, and asked the police to look into the cases.
The court was also pained to note that despite its order directing Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR) states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan to pay subsistence allowance to daily workers and construction labourers left without jobs during the ban period, not a single state showed full compliance. Directing the chief secretaries to remain present virtually on the next date of hearing, the bench said, “We must be conscious of the fact that several workers are without any livelihood... Our experience suggests that only when senior officials are summoned that the ball starts to move. Let them appear through video conferencing, only then they will understand the seriousness of our order.”
The order said that unless substantial compliance is made, the court will consider initiating contempt of court proceedings in the matter.
Recommended Topics