The Supreme Court on Monday refused to order blanket anti-pollution restrictions such as a permanent halt on construction activity or limits on vehicular movement in Delhi and the surrounding region. The court remarked that the national capital cannot be brought to a complete halt in the name of tackling toxic air.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai stated that the court cannot freeze economic operations or deprive large numbers of migrant labourers of their livelihood, even though air quality is likely to deteriorate further in the coming days.
“We cannot completely shut down every activity. The city cannot be stopped entirely,” the Chief Justice said while responding to senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who called Delhi a “gas chamber” and urged that the situation required drastic action.
The bench, which also included Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, observed that many daily wage workers from states such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh depend on work in the NCR region, and any solution must not create harm greater than the existing crisis.
The case was heard in the backdrop of multiple applications linked to long-standing litigation on NCR pollution at a time when Delhi’s air quality has again slipped into the “very poor” category and may cross into the “severe” range between November 17 and 19. Measures under the Graded Response Action Plan have remained at Stage Three since November 11, resulting in a halt to non-essential construction, tighter checks on industrial operations and enhanced enforcement.
The bench highlighted that restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan have been designed by experts using scientific air quality models and that the judiciary does not have the specialised knowledge to replace those guidelines with its own framework. The court stressed that a balance must be maintained between environmental concerns and the functioning of society. “The graded approach is linked to the Air Quality Index and scientific data,” the bench noted.
The bench turned down Sankaranarayanan’s request that the court should take an extreme step and halt all activity that is permitted even under the first level of the Graded Response Action Plan throughout the year. The court stated that such steps are not contemplated by law and may not be constitutionally workable.
“If that logic is followed, even the courts would have to stop,” the Chief Justice stated when the senior lawyer suggested that judicial work could shift completely online.
Sankaranarayanan argued that India’s air pollution thresholds are far weaker than those used in places such as California and that steps like car sharing mandates, additional charges on private vehicles and a complete construction ban cannot be avoided. He said that fine particles such as PM2.5 cause irreversible damage inside children’s lungs and claimed that the moment demanded extremely tough measures.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, opposed a year-long ban and cautioned that such an order would have a serious effect on labourers who rely on daily earnings. She pointed out that several actions have already been launched under Stage Three and added that this year has shown fewer instances of severe air quality. She said that the matter does not require a sudden or impulsive response and that the government may return with further suggestions shortly.
Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh drew attention to the fact that stubble burning numbers reported from Punjab have fallen while pollution levels in NCR have not shown improvement. She noted that although machinery has been provided to farmers, the equipment may not be used consistently or the fires that continue may be cancelling out any gains.
Taking note of these concerns, the bench called for a coordinated strategy that delivers long-term results. The bench stated that the Union should consult all concerned authorities and submit durable steps rather than short-term responses.
In its formal order, the bench directed the chief secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to ensure full implementation of the Commission for Air Quality Management instructions issued on November 13. The court also noted the submission of the Union representative that a meeting with state environment ministers was already held and more proposals would be presented. The matter will come up again on November 19.
During the hearing, questions were again raised about the quality and suitability of Delhi’s air monitoring systems. The amicus said that many monitors were outdated and inadequate for Delhi’s complex pollution profile, but Bhati insisted that the equipment in use is among the best available globally. The bench asked the Centre to file a written explanation describing the specifications and capabilities of the monitors.
The hearing took place while pollution levels were rising again. Delhi’s Air Quality Index was recorded at 359 at eight in the morning on Monday, firmly within the “very poor” category, after minor improvement the day before due to stronger winds. Forecasts from the Early Warning System of the Union Ministry of Earth Sciences predict a return to the “severe” category between November 17 and 19.
Delhi’s average Air Quality Index for November 1 to 15 is 349, slightly lower than 367 in the same period last year and 376 the year before. Experts however note that the drop may be influenced by delayed harvesting and reduced crop burning. They have also flagged irregularities and missing data at some monitoring stations.
There have already been three “severe” air quality days and ten “very poor” days in the first half of November. Falling temperatures, including a minimum of nine degrees Celsius recorded on Sunday, are expected to worsen the inversion effect and prevent dispersion of pollutants.
The latest hearing comes days after Justice P S Narasimha, in a separate matter, described the air pollution crisis as extremely serious and urged lawyers to avoid physical appearances. He warned that the pollution could cause permanent harm and that even face masks may not offer reliable protection.
