The Delhi government, on its part, has not done much to control air pollution and instead, has been blaming external factors. First, it blamed Punjab and Haryana for high pollution levels because of stubble burning. Then when stubble burning reduced in these states, the weather was blamed. For the record, stubble burning incidents in the two paddy growing breadbasket states were 50% less than in previous years.

Delhi’s environment minister, Gopal Rai, quoted a Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) study claiming that 60% of Delhi’s air pollution comes from outside the Capital. When I asked the CSE for the source of the study, they said it was based on limited period data — 15 days — from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, whose scientists run the System for Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research (SAFAR). In the past, CSE had said that a majority of the pollution load in Delhi is from in-house sources.

It is important to note that SAFAR is the organisation that provides everyday sources of air pollution in Delhi. Its data showed that stubble contributed to 44% of Delhi’s bad air on November 1, when the Capital’s air quality was rated as “severe”. The contribution of stubble burning, as claimed by SAFAR, gradually fell to zero by November 25, even though the Capital’s air remained in the “very poor” or “severe” category.

SAFAR scientists failed to explain why Delhi’s air did not improve dramatically when the contribution of stubble burning fell to zero, and began to owe it to the colder-than-normal weather conditions. One cannot deny that the onset of the winter is a major contributing factor for high pollution levels as the dispersal of pollutants reduces in colder weather conditions with almost zero wind speed. However, this change in weather applies to stubble burning as well, with poor wind speeds not allowing stubble emissions to travel from Punjab and Haryana to Delhi.

The sources of air pollution are measurable chemicals such as oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide. The particulate matter is mostly dust mixed with emissions. By analysing the air, one can determine the possible sources of pollution. Stubble comes under biomass burning, which includes landfill fires, burning wood for cooking, and winter burning for heat. The SAFAR website does not present any documentation on how it differentiates between stubble and other biomass burning.

Various studies have shown that emissions from stubble and other biomass burning are almost similar, making it difficult to differentiate between their emissions through chemical air analyses. Without the stubble-versus-other-biomass differentiator, SAFAR blaming stubble for Delhi’s bad air is an injustice to farmers and amounts to air pollution escapism. However, this is not to advocate that stubble should be burnt. It should be treated scientifically, and farmers, especially small and marginal, should get incentives for the same.

Stubble burning cannot become a reason for an overdrive to hide the failure of the governments to implement an air pollution control action plan, which CJI Ramana also pointed out in his observations. He rightly asked what the state governments and the Air Pollution Commission of the central government are doing to control air pollution. They told the court that Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) has been enforced and certain industries — including thermal power plants — have been shut.

Its name notwithstanding, GRAP is more of an emergency response measure and not an action plan to combat air pollution. In fact, most state governments do not have a year-round action plan to reduce air pollution. Further, there is no agency to monitor how much air pollution states have reduced on a yearly basis. Also, there are no economic incentives to reduce air pollution even though the annual economic cost of air pollution — because of the closure of industry and its impact on health — is enormous.

Delhi — the most polluted Capital city in the world — has a high source of pollution from large-scale industries in and around the Capital along with increasing vehicular emissions. The Najafgarh drain in Delhi, which includes industrial clusters of Anand Parbat, Naraina, Okhla and Wazirpur, is the second most polluted industrial zone in the country. Around 3,182 major industries are located close to Delhi and industrial pollution contributes about 18.6% of the poor air quality. Over 11 million vehicles in Delhi contribute to about 41% of its bad air, the highest for any category. Construction dust contributes 3% to 11%, according to an analysis by the Centre for Environment, Energy and Water (CEEW) in 2019. The biomass contribution — including stubble — ranges from 4% in the summer to 12% in the peak season of October and November, according to CEEW.

Various air appropriation studies done by reputed research institutions in the country agree that stubble cannot be a major contributing factor. Local emissions sources are. One needs to look at how urbanisation has contributed to an increase in the pollution load. The population of once small towns such as Rohtak and Sonepat in Haryana, Meerut and Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh, and Bhiwandi in Rajasthan has more than tripled in the past two decades. They now resemble urban jungles devoid of proper planning. The national census office estimates that, by 2050, the population of the National Capital Region (NCR) will double. This only means that there will be higher localised emissions, if the pollution abatement plan is not activated.

Sources of air pollution aside, the Capital’s bad air is a reflection of an overall governance failure. NCR transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with the Capital’s growing population, and dust management is not an integral part of municipal governance.

The SC, in its various orders in the past month, has directly or indirectly reflected on these governance failures, with CJI Ramana’s comment on appointing an administrator for Delhi being in this very context. People who are suffering because of high pollution levels in the NCR are looking to the SC for some relief, as they did when it made the introduction of CNG mandatory to deal with high nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide pollution levels in 1998.

Back then too, governments were resisting “harsh” (read: robust) measures and decisions, but the top court enforced them for the better health of the people. It needs to take a similar approach now even if the political executive is not a willing partner. We all know that air pollution is the fifth-biggest reason for deaths in India. And yet again, people are looking at the apex court for some relief.

The views expressed are personal