Should Supreme Court tackle Delhi’s air pollution?

As North India ushers in the winter, a grim spectre returns – Delhi’s suffocating air pollution. The city’s Air Quality Index routinely plunges into the “hazardous” category, posing severe risks to public health. The annual crisis reignites debates over administrative inefficiencies, policy failures, and judicial interventions. This year is no different, as the Supreme Court, once again, addresses this pressing issue.

While the Court’s efforts to protect the constitutional right to life under Article 21 are well-intentioned, its deepening involvement in executive matters such as air pollution management, raises the question – should the judiciary venture into the executive domain? Delhi’s pollution problem resurfaces every winter, as a combination of stubble-burning in neighbouring states, vehicular emissions, industrial pollutants, and weather conditions transforms the capital into a gas chamber.

Road dust, waste burning and traffic congestion, apart from crop residue burning in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, are some of the known causes but the response from the executive has been piecemeal at best. The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), launched in 2017 to curb air pollution during emergencies, often kicks in too late to be effective. As state governments blame each other, citizens bear the brunt of this policy paralysis. It is in this governance vacuum that the Supreme Court has stepped in, taking an increasingly proactive role.

The Indian judiciary enjoys vast powers under the Constitution, particularly through Articles 32 and 226, which allow it to enforce fundamental rights. The introduction of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the 1980s marked a turning point, enabling it to address issues affecting the public at large. Landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) and M C Mehta vs. Union of India (1987) showcased the transformative potential of PILs, with the judiciary stepping in to uphold rights when the executive faltered.

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping India’s environmental jurisprudence. From banning the use of polluting fuels to mandating the adoption of compressed natural gas in public transport, the Supreme Court has made significant contributions to improving air quality. However, its interventions in recent years – such as shutting down construction activities, imposing vehicle restrictions, and halting school operations – have taken a tone of activism.

Air pollution is inherently an executive domain, requiring policy formulation, inter-state coordination, and rigorous enforcement. The Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to the executive for environmental protection under Article 48A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment. Additionally, statutory bodies like the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards monitor pollution levels. When the Supreme Court assumes the role of policymaker and enforcer, it risks undermining these institutions.

Misplaced priorities

Judicial activism has been a hallmark of India’s judiciary, enabling it to address social and environmental issues where the executive has failed. However, when the judiciary starts performing executive functions, it blurs the separation of powers – a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy. When the Supreme Court steps in to manage air pollution, it inadvertently provides an excuse for the executive to shirk its responsibilities. State governments can conveniently blame judicial directives for any failures, diluting their own accountability to the public. Moreover, judicial interventions often lack the technical expertise and local insights required for effective policymaking, leading to ad hoc solutions rather than long-term strategies. This overreach also burdens the judiciary, which is already grappling with a staggering backlog of cases. When the judiciary takes on executive responsibilities, it diverts its attention from its primary role – dispensing justice. Rather than taking on executive functions, the Court needs to focus on holding the government accountable, ensuring compliance with existing laws, and upholding citizens’ rights.

For instance, it can direct the executive to strengthen institutional frameworks such as the National Green Tribunal and PCBs, and monitor the implementation of policies like GRAP and penalise non-compliance. The executive, on its part, must address inter-state coordination challenges, invest in clean energy and public transport, and enforce pollution control norms rigorously. State governments must also work collaboratively rather than resort to blame games.

India’s democracy thrives on a delicate balance of power among its institutions. The judiciary, executive, and legislature have distinct roles and responsibilities, as envisioned by the Constitution. While the Supreme Court’s interventions in matters like air pollution reflect its commitment to protecting fundamental rights, they need to be tempered with restraint.

By respecting the boundaries of their domains, India’s institutions can work together to find sustainable solutions to this crisis. The judiciary, while playing its role as a watchdog, can ensure that its actions do not undermine the principles of accountability, separation of powers, and institutional integrity that are vital to India’s democratic fabric.

(The writer is a legal researcher based in Delhi)