- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suo Moto v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Tribunal has repeatedly addressed the issue of air pollution caused by stubble burning (Parali) through various cases, including Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control Authority) (O.A. No. 118/2013) and Smt. Ganga Lalwani v. Union of India (O.A. No. 451/2018). Despite prior orders and directions issued to States and concerned authorities, including the State of Rajasthan, to prevent stubble burning, reports indicated non-compliance. A newspaper report dated 30.05.2019 highlighted that the Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur, burned stubble within its campus despite existing stay orders by the National Green Tribunal prohibiting such acts. This prompted the Tribunal to take suo-motu cognizance of the matter and initiate proceedings by registering a new original application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether action should be taken against the Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur, and other concerned authorities for burning stubble contrary to the Tribunal’s directions and stay orders.
- Whether the principle of ‘polluters pays’ should be applied to hold responsible parties accountable for polluting activities despite prohibitory orders.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control Authority) (O.A. No. 118/2013) | Recognition of stubble burning as a source of air pollution requiring regulatory intervention. | Referenced as an initial case where the Tribunal took cognizance of pollution from stubble burning. |
| Smt. Ganga Lalwani v. Union of India (O.A. No. 451/2018 and O.A. No. 666/2018) | Enforcement of Tribunal’s directions to prevent stubble burning and review compliance. | Used to illustrate continued non-compliance and the need for further action by the Tribunal. |
| National Green Tribunal stay orders | Prohibition of stubble burning activities to prevent air pollution. | Invoked to highlight violation by Agricultural Research Institute despite prohibitory orders. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal acknowledged the persistent problem of air pollution due to stubble burning and its prior interventions through multiple orders and directions to States and authorities. The shocking report of stubble burning by the Agricultural Research Institute, a government instrumentality, despite explicit stay orders, demonstrated a serious breach of the Tribunal’s directives and environmental obligations. The court emphasized the State’s duty to prevent such polluting activities and noted that previous efforts had not sufficed. Consequently, the Tribunal exercised suo-motu jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and issue notices to relevant authorities, invoking the ‘polluter pays’ principle to hold responsible parties accountable.
Holding and Implications
The Tribunal directed the registration of a new original application suo-motu and issued notices to the Union of India, State of Rajasthan, Agricultural University, Agricultural Research Institute, and Pollution Control Boards to show cause why legal action should not be taken against them for stubble burning.
The direct effect of this decision is the commencement of formal proceedings against the named respondents, reinforcing the Tribunal’s commitment to enforcing environmental protection orders. The order signals strict scrutiny over government instrumentalities’ compliance with pollution control norms but does not establish new legal precedent beyond reaffirming enforcement of existing directives.
In recent past air pollution in relation to stubble burning (Parali) has become a menace. This Tribunal had taken cognizance of this issue on several occasions and had passed various orders from time to time. Initially the Tribunal had taken note of pollution on account of stubble burning in the case of Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control Authority) (O.A. No. 118/2013). The matter was again considered in the case of Smt. Ganga Lalwani v. Union of India (O.A. No. 451/2018). In the said application it was alleged that directions of the Tribunal are not being enforced. Subsequently, the matter of Smt. Ganga Lalwani was taken up in a separate original application (O.A. No. 666/2018). Likewise, this Tribunal had taken cognizance of the issue on the news item published in ‘Indian Express’ titled as “All fiddle as crop stubble burns, farmers say solutions out of reach” and another news item published in “Times of India, titled as “Day after Dussehra, air quality dives, slight haze over city”. In those matters this Tribunal had issued appropriate directions to all the officers concerned upto the level of the Chief Secretaries of States, which included State of Rajasthan to review the situation by calling an appropriate meeting and to submit a report to the Tribunal.
It is rather shocking to the core of our conscience when we came across a news item in daily newspaper “Bhaskar” of 30.05.2019 wherein it mentions about burning of Parali after harvesting the crops at Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur. It has also been mentioned in the news that despite of stay orders having been passed by National Green Tribunal, prohibiting burning of Parali in the States, the Agricultural Research Institute has in its campus burned down the stubble after harvesting the crop. The news paper clips are marked as ‘x’ and ‘y’ and they be placed on record. Here is a case where not our farmers but government and its instrumentalities are themselves are taking the steps which had been of serious concern for the public at large and the State is duty bound to prevent/prohibit such practices. Moreover, several orders have been passed by the Tribunal in the past with the directions to the States for taking appropriate steps.
Therefore, we deem it proper to take suo-moto cognizance. The office is directed to register the same as an original application.
Issue notice to all the concerned as to why action, in accordance with law, may not be taken against them, including the principle of ‘polluters pays’.
Notices be issued to the following:
1. Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture through its Secretary, New Delhi;
2. State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary;
3. Agriculture University, Bikaner through its Registrar;
4. Director Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur;
5. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, through its Secretary;
6. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, through its Secretary.
The notices made returnable within two weeks.
The Registrar Agriculture University, Bikaner shall remain present before the Tribunal on the next date.
A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar Agriculture University, Bikaner by e-mail, forthwith.
List the matter on 26 June, 2019.
Alert