Syllabus: GS-III: Environmental Degradation

Why in the News?

Recently during a hearing, the Supreme Court and the Union government differed sharply on how to address the recurring menace of stubble burning in northern India. The apex court, pressed for reviving criminal prosecution of farmers who burn crop residue, even suggesting a separate legislation. The Centre, however,disagreed with it, highlighting the difficulties of criminalisation. This debate comes against the backdrop of persistent air pollution spikes in Delhi and surrounding regions each post-harvest season, despite years of judicial monitoring, government schemes, and public spending.

More About the News

• The hearing also highlighted institutional gaps: large vacancies in the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which undermine enforcement capacity. 
• Further, the Court directed CAQM to find alternatives to blanket bans on construction activities in Delhi-NCR during winters, balancing environmental concerns with the livelihoods of migrant workers.

What is Stubble Burning? (and Why it is Harmful)

• Definition: Stubble burning is the deliberate setting on fire of the leftover crop residue (stubble) in fields after harvest—most commonly paddy straw in parts of north India.
  
• Immediate emissions: Burning generates smoke containing particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and black carbon.
  
• Health & environment impacts: These pollutants cause respiratory and cardiovascular illness, reduce visibility, contribute to smog formation in cities downwind, deposit black carbon on snow/ice (affecting albedo), and add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
  
• Agronomic effects: Repeated burning depletes soil organic matter and micro-organisms, harms soil structure and reduces long-term fertility if used routinely.
  

Steps Already Taken to Control Stubble Burning

• Technological solutions and subsidies
  
  • Promotion and subsidisation of in-situ machinery (e.g., happy-seeders, rotavators, mulchers) that allow sowing without removing residue.
    
  • Investment support for residue-collection machines (baler, shredder) to enable biomass collection.
    
• Alternate uses & value chains
  
  • Support for biomass-to-energy projects, briquetting and pelletisation units to convert residue into sellable feedstock.
    
  • Encouraging local industries (bio-CNG, cardboard, packaging, mushroom farming, fodder processing).
    
• Operational & market interventions
  
  • Incentives for procurement and minimum support price (MSP) linked interventions that avoid simultaneous crop-cutting windows.
    
  • Contract farming and aggregator models connecting farmers to processors who buy residue.
    
• Legal, monitoring and enforcement measures
  
  • Satellite-based remote sensing and field surveillance to detect burning events in near-real time.
    
  • Notification-based actions, fines or administrative penalties by state pollution and agriculture departments.
    
• Awareness, extension and capacity building
  
  • Farmer training, demonstration plots, and seasonal campaigns explaining alternatives and safety hazards.
    
  • Credit and rental models so smallholders can access machinery without large capital outlays.
    
• Institutional coordination
  
  • Inter-departmental task forces (agriculture, environment, power, rural development) and district contingency plans for burning seasons.
    

Challenges in Controlling Stubble Burning

• Small land-holdings & cost pressure: Most farmers in affected regions are smallholders; buying machines is capital-intensive and returns from residue may be low.
  
• Short windows between crops: Quick turnaround between paddy harvest and wheat sowing creates time pressure; mechanical residue management must be fast and reliable.
  
• Market absence for residue: Lack of scalable buyers for biomass makes removal economically unattractive.
  
• Logistics & aggregation problems: Collecting, transporting and storing bulky, low-value straw is costly.
  
• Implementation gap: State programmes exist but last-mile delivery (timely subsidies, machine availability, fuel/maintenance) is uneven.
  
• Enforcement capacity: Monitoring identifies incidents, but legal and administrative follow-up at scale is limited.
  
• Social equity concerns: Criminal prosecution risks penalising poor and marginal farmers who lack alternatives; it may also create rural unrest.
  
• Policy fragmentation & political economy: Multiple agencies and local politics complicate sustained measures; short-term relief and repairs offer political returns whereas prevention requires sustained investment.

Argument in Favour of Criminal Prosecution for Stubble Burning

1. Deterrence effect: Clear criminal sanctions may produce immediate behavioural change where voluntary measures have failed repeatedly.
   
2. Public health imperative: Repeated burning creates acute health emergencies in large urban populations—the state has a duty to protect life and health.
   
3. Rule of law & accountability: Continuously flouted prohibitions with minimal consequences can be countered by criminal sanctions to reinforce compliance.
   
4. Signalling seriousness: Threat of punishment signals that environmental externalities impose real legal costs; it may accelerate investment in alternatives.
   

Argument against Criminal Prosecution for Stubble Burning

• Burden on the poorest: Most burners are small farmers; criminalisation may punish poverty rather than address structural causes.
  
• Implementation impracticality: Criminal law requires proof, prosecutions, courts and resources; criminalising thousands of incidents every year would overload the justice system.
  
• Perverse incentives & evasion: Fear of arrest may push burning at odd hours or off-field dumping; it can make the problem harder to monitor.
  
• Risk of social conflict: Communities may perceive criminal measures as punitive without support—risking protests and political backlash.
  
• Focus shift from solutions: Over-reliance on punishment can displace emphasis from building sustainable alternatives (machinery access, market creation).
  
• Legal proportionality & human rights: Penal sanctions for acts born of economic necessity may raise proportionality and fairness concerns under constitutional jurisprudence.
  

Stand of the Supreme Court (judicial posture & directions)

• Advocated reviving criminal prosecution for stubble burning; suggested even a new law dedicated to the issue.
• Emphasised a carrot-and-stick approach: incentives must be backed with deterrence.
• Suggested selective penal action (not routine) to “send the right message.”
• Cautioned that while farmers deserve respect, they also have a duty to protect the environment.
• Warned that if the Centre does not adopt a uniform national policy, the Court may issue a mandamus.
  

Stand of the Central Government (policy posture)

• Opposed criminal prosecution, preferring to “take farmers along.”
• Farmers were exempted from penalties under the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act as a matter of policy.
• Argued that criminalisation is not feasible and that responsibility lies with states for on-ground implementation.
• Clarified that the policy is designed to avoid alienating vulnerable farmers.
• Committed to filing a detailed status report on Punjab, Haryana, and UP.

Feasibility Analysis: Can Criminal Prosecution Work?

• Legal feasibility: Criminalisation is legally possible (through penal provisions in state acts, IPC sections, or air-pollution regulations) but requires careful drafting to define mens rea, exceptions, and procedural safeguards.
• Administrative feasibility: Effective prosecution needs robust ground evidence (time, place, actor), investigative capacity, and functioning lower courts—currently strained in many jurisdictions.
• Behavioral feasibility: Without viable, affordable alternatives, criminal penalties may not achieve long-term behaviour change. A credible mix of carrots + sticks is needed.
• Political feasibility: Sustained political will across central and state governments matters; short electoral cycles often favour quick visible actions over long-term systemic investments.
• Equity feasibility: Prosecution must be designed to protect smallholders: exemptions, graduated penalties, diversion to restorative measures (community service, mandatory adoption of technology) are necessary to avoid injustice.
  

Way Forward — A Practical, Balanced Strategy

• Balanced legal framework: Use administrative fines and civil penalties for most cases; reserve criminal prosecution for repeat, deliberate, or large-scale violations.
• Strengthen alternatives: Scale up custom-hiring centres, biomass markets, and bio-CNG plants.
• Advancing Rabi Sowing: By promoting short-duration paddy varieties can shift stubble burning to September–early October, when the ITCZ and residual monsoon winds disperse pollutants more effectively, reducing winter smog accumulation.
• Crop diversification: Promote less water- and residue-intensive crops (millets, pulses).
• Improve coordination: National-level uniform policy integrating states, CAQM, and local governments.
• Enhance monitoring: Expand satellite-based alerts with real-time local response teams.
• Community involvement: Farmer cooperatives, Panchayats, and unions as partners in zero-burn campaigns.
• Incentive + penalty mix: Offer subsidies and procurement benefits to compliant farmers while penalising violators.

Conclusion

Criminal prosecution for stubble burning is a tempting, politically salient policy lever because of its immediacy and deterrent symbolism. But on its own it is unlikely to be equitable, practicable or sustainable. A nuanced approach — targeting commercial profiteers, using graduated penalties, and protecting smallholders by rapidly scaling viable technical and market alternatives — offers a far better prospect of reducing burning while preserving social justice and agricultural livelihoods. The objective must be to move from punitive reactions to systemic prevention: build alternatives, create demand for residue, strengthen monitoring, and reserve criminal law for exceptional, deliberate, or commercial wrongdoing.

Mains Practice Question 

1. The Supreme Court has suggested criminal prosecution for stubble burning, while the Centre prefers a cooperative approach with farmers. Critically analyse both positions in light of environmental protection, governance, and social justice. Suggest a balanced way forward. (250 words / 15 marks)

The Hindu