On November 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the failure of authorities in effectively implementing the GRAP-IV measures to address Delhi’s air pollution crisis. During a hearing in the MC Mehta case, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed concerns over the lack of enforcement of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in the National Capital Region (NCR). The Court specifically highlighted that the Court Commissioners’ reports pointed out serious deficiencies in the ground-level implementation of GRAP-IV, which aims to combat the alarming air quality levels in Delhi.
Court’s Directions and Concerns Over Implementation
The bench directed the NCR states to respond by December 2, 2024, regarding the specific measures they plan to take in response to the breaches identified by the Court Commissioners. A significant issue raised was the entry of trucks into Delhi. The Court noted that trucks were not only allowed into the city but were also often seen making U-turns after entering and traveling some distance into Delhi. This practice, the Court emphasized, needs immediate attention and corrective measures to reduce vehicular emissions contributing to the city’s pollution levels.
In light of the ongoing crisis, the Supreme Court ruled that the GRAP-IV restrictions would remain in place until Monday, December 2. However, the Court also clarified that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) should meet to consider transitioning from GRAP-IV to GRAP-III or GRAP-II based on the prevailing air quality. The Court observed that not all GRAP-IV measures need to be lifted but that a combination of measures from different stages of GRAP could be implemented as necessary.
Court Rejects Additional Exceptions for Trucks
The Supreme Court further emphasized that no authority has the power to grant additional exceptions for trucks, beyond those carrying essential goods or providing essential services, or those that are LNG/CNG/Electric/BS-VI compliant. The bench made it clear that any orders issued by any authority permitting additional exceptions for truck entries will have no legal effect. The Court’s stringent stance comes in response to the ongoing issues with truck emissions in Delhi, which have been a significant contributor to the deteriorating air quality.
CAQM’s Clarification on Construction Activities Draws Criticism
The Court also criticized the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for issuing a clarification that allowed certain construction activities to continue despite the GRAP-IV restrictions in place. This clarification, issued on November 28, 2024, stated that while construction and demolition activities were banned under GRAP-IV, other activities permitted under GRAP-III could continue. The Supreme Court took exception to this, with Justice Oka calling the clarification confusing, as GRAP-IV prohibits all construction activities. He questioned the rationale behind the clarification and instructed the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to ensure its withdrawal, emphasizing that such contradictory notifications would mislead the public and create further confusion.
Ground-Level Failures in Enforcement of GRAP-IV
In a further scathing critique, the Court Commissioners appointed by the Supreme Court reported that the GRAP-IV measures were not being enforced on the ground level. The Commissioners submitted that construction activities continued in posh colonies, factories were running 24 hours a day, and waste burning persisted. These activities directly violated the restrictions under GRAP-IV. The Court pointed out that there were also no CCTV cameras at the border points, and the Delhi government had failed to deploy civic volunteers to enforce the measures effectively.
Senior advocate Aparajit Singh, representing the amicus curiae, suggested that trucks should be stopped at the NCR border rather than the Delhi border to prevent them from entering the city. Singh also highlighted reports indicating that some trucks were misusing the exemption provisions by transporting cement under the guise of wheat flour.
Justice Oka, addressing these concerns, expressed frustration over the lack of action and the failure of authorities to implement GRAP-IV measures effectively. The bench noted that serious action must be taken against those responsible for the specific violations identified by the Court Commissioners, urging the authorities to address the issues with a sense of urgency and resolve the systemic shortcomings.
The Supreme Court’s strong criticism of the implementation of GRAP-IV underscores the need for stricter enforcement of air quality measures in Delhi and NCR. With the ongoing air pollution crisis, the Court has called for urgent corrective measures, particularly regarding truck entries into Delhi, construction activities, and waste burning. The response from the NCR states on the proposed actions to curb pollution is expected by December 2, 2024, and the CAQM will further review the air quality situation to decide whether a shift to GRAP-III or GRAP-II is necessary. The Court’s directions reflect the urgency of addressing Delhi’s air pollution and the failure of current enforcement mechanisms.
Lawcutor 