By priyag
73260 Views
The Supreme Court has criticized the CAQM for its delayed response to Delhi-NCR's worsening air quality. Despite the AQI surpassing the "severe-plus" threshold, the commission failed to implement timely measures under the Graded Response Action Plan.
The Supreme Court has sharply criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for its delayed response to escalating air pollution levels in Delhi-NCR. On Monday, a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Augustine George Masih directed the continuation of Stage IV restrictions under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), even if the Air Quality Index (AQI) falls below the “severe-plus” 450 threshold.
GRAP, introduced in January 2017 by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, is an emergency framework to combat rising pollution in Delhi-NCR. The plan categorises air quality into four stages:
Under GRAP Stage IV, stringent restrictions are implemented, including bans on non-essential truck traffic, suspension of construction activities, and the closure of schools and colleges, among other measures.
The apex court condemned the CAQM for failing to act proactively, highlighting that the commission waited for the air quality to improve instead of implementing preemptive measures. Justice Oka noted that despite AQI surpassing 400 on November 12, GRAP Stage III was enforced only on November 14. Similarly, CAQM delayed the activation of Stage IV until November 18, despite the AQI breaching 450 on November 13.
“The approach of the CAQM is completely wrong,” Justice Oka remarked, adding that the commission should have anticipated the worsening air quality instead of relying on hopeful projections.
As of November 17, Delhi’s AQI reached a staggering 483, placing the city firmly in the “severe-plus” category. The toxic air has rendered outdoor activities hazardous, with an AQI of 994 reported inside a courtroom, prompting urgent intervention. The situation has led to widespread disruptions:
While GRAP aims to curb pollution through systematic measures, experts argue that delayed implementation has rendered its effectiveness questionable. Stage I and II, which involve dust control and vehicle management, are designed to prevent air quality from deteriorating to “severe” levels. The CAQM’s failure to enforce these stages on time has exacerbated the crisis.
Amicus curiae Aparijita Singh revealed discrepancies in stubble-burning data, citing findings from a South Korean satellite that detected more incidents post-midnight, challenging claims of reduced farm fires. Meanwhile, vehicular emissions, accounting for 15.8% of Delhi’s pollution on Sunday, remain a significant contributor despite GRAP restrictions.
The Supreme Court has mandated all NCR states to form monitoring committees for strict enforcement of GRAP Stage IV. Furthermore, the CAQM has been instructed to explore additional measures under Stages III and IV, such as expanded work-from-home policies and further traffic restrictions.
To mitigate personal exposure, residents are advised to:
The Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke highlights the urgent need for decisive, preemptive action to combat Delhi-NCR’s annual pollution crisis. As authorities scramble to enforce emergency measures, the question remains: how long can the region afford to rely on reactive governance in the face of a predictable, recurring disaster?