THE SUPREME COURT TODAY called for a ‘carrot and stick’ approach to curb the practice of stubble burning, stressing that while farmers are important since “we eat because of them,” the environment too has to be protected.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a bench with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, observed that “farmers are special and we are eating because of them but it does not mean that we cannot protect the environment,” while pressing for punitive measures including penalties and jail terms to deter the practice.
“Why don't you think of some penalty provisions? If some people are behind bars, it will send the correct message,” the Bench suggested.
Stubble burning involves setting fire to residual paddy straw to clear fields for the sowing of wheat. Farmers resort to this as the interval between harvesting paddy and sowing wheat is short.
The observations came during the hearing on filling vacancies in the State Pollution Control Boards of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The Court gave three months to fill the vacant posts.
The Punjab government told the Court that stubble burning cases had reduced in recent years—from over 17,000 incidents in 2023 to about 11,000 last year.
Chief Justice Gavai said the problem could be resolved with “real intentions” and not through a five-year exercise, pointing out that stubble could also be used as biofuel.
During the hearing, the Bench was informed that Punjab authorities were advising farmers to burn stubble when satellites were not passing over the state. However, it was clarified that knowledge of satellite movement rests with the central government and not the state.
The Punjab government told the Court that stubble burning cases had reduced in recent years—from over 17,000 incidents in 2023 to about 11,000 last year—and it was hoped that the number would further come down.
Advocating stronger measures, the Bench told the Punjab government to take a firm call or else the court would issue a mandamus. Counsel for the state responded that arrests had been made in the past, but since most affected farmers own only an acre or so, punitive action against them impacts their families as well.