Indian Supreme Court raps Punjab govt over stubble burning, asks it to take cue from Haryana

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 21) rapped the Punjab government over the unabated stubble burning which is making Delhi’s air quality toxic.

It said that Punjab farmers are being “made a villain” due to the Punjab government’s failure to make crop residue management completely free.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, while hearing the plea, suggested why should there be any purchase under the minimum support price (MSP) system from farmers who indulge in crop residue burning, irrespective of the fact that citizens and children were affected due to pollution.

'Farmers are being made villain'

“Why doesn’t the Punjab government make the process of crop residue 100% free? To burn it, all the farmer needs to do is light a matchstick. Machine for the management of crop residue to farmers is not everything. Even if the machine is given for free, there is diesel cost, manpower, etc,” the Supreme Court said, asking why Punjab cannot fund diesel, manpower, etc., and utilise the byproduct, according to PTI news agency.

“The state of Punjab should also take a cue from the state of Haryana in the manner in which financial incentives are given,” the apex court added.

When the Punjab government, during the hearing, told the court that it is taking steps to control crop residue burning, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the pollution matter, flagged that more than 700 farm fire incidents were reported in the state on Monday.

"What are they (authorities) doing?" Singh told the bench.

Justice Dhulia observed, "The only person who can answer this is the farmers. He can tell you why he is doing it. He is not here. The farmer is being made a villain and the villain has not been heard. He (farmer) must be having some reasons."

Alternative ways of disposing stubble

The court also asked Attorney General R Venkatramani to explore “how you can discourage paddy and encourage alternate crops”.

It was also apprised of the issues faced by farmers in adopting alternative ways of disposing of stubble.

“We put to the advocate general as to why the state cannot fund even this aspect and utilise the byproduct…,” the apex court said.

“We say so because there are farmers operating on different economic scales where they are able to gain profit even by the byproduct by use of these machines”.

(With inputs from agencies)