Context

0.1 In Delhi’s National Capital Region (NCR), vehicular emissions are identified as the primary contributor to air pollution, especially PM2.5 and toxic gases such as carbon monoxide, benzene, and nitrogen oxides, shaping the debate on air pollution in Delhi NCR.
0.2 Despite this, public discourse and institutional responses have frequently attributed Delhi’s deteriorating air quality to stubble burning by farmers in Punjab and Haryana.

Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)

0.1 The polluter pays principle (PPP) assigns the cost of environmental damage to the person or firm responsible for pollution of air, water, and land.
0.2 In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court recognised PPP as part of Indian law, later reflected in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
0.3 Applying PPP to air pollution is complex because pollution arises from multiple point and non-point sources, operating both directly and indirectly.
0.4 Air pollution also has a transboundary dimension, making PPP difficult to apply without cooperation among neighbouring regions and states.

Stubble burning and proportional liability

0.1 Jurisprudence from the Standley case (European Court of Justice, 1999) highlights limits on liability when pollution outcomes cannot be exclusively attributed to one group.
0.2 The case introduces proportionality, suggesting that farmers engaged in seasonal stubble burning cannot be held responsible for pollutants generated by industrial and vehicular sources.
0.3 This reasoning questions the fairness of singularly blaming stubble burning for air pollution in Delhi NCR.

Transboundary nature of air pollution

0.1 Air pollution is influenced by regional and global atmospheric processes, affecting areas far from the original source.
0.2 The Trail Smelter case (1941) established that long-range air pollution can cause cross-border environmental damage.
0.3 Scientific evidence shows that PM2.5 travels long distances, reinforcing the difficulty of assigning precise liability for Delhi’s pollution to one activity or region.

International frameworks and relevance

0.1 The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP, 1979) reflects international recognition of cross-border air pollution.
0.2 The Gothenburg Protocol (2012 amendment) explicitly includes PM2.5 as a pollutant capable of long-distance transport.
0.3 These examples illustrate the nature and spread of air pollution, not direct international legal liability in India.

Shift towards government-pays principle

0.1 Indian courts have struggled to define clear methods for valuing environmental damage, particularly in air pollution cases.
0.2 In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action cases, judicial responses focused on compensation and environmental restoration.
0.3 This reflects a gradual shift from strict PPP towards a government-pays principle, where the state bears significant costs.

Legal and institutional framework in India

0.1 Pollution control relies on the Water Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981, and Environment Protection Act, 1986.
0.2 Articles 48A and 51A(g) provide constitutional backing for environmental protection.
0.3 Authorities are empowered to issue directions, including closure of industries, to safeguard the environment.

Activist judiciary

0.1 Regulatory institutions suffer from administrative weaknesses, limiting effective enforcement.
0.2 Judicial activism has increased obligations on governments to fund monitoring and control of air pollution.
0.3 Liability on polluters is often imposed secondarily, reflecting a welfarist approach focused on public health protection.
0.4 While this prioritises relief, it does not fully internalise pollution prevention costs or emphasise individual environmental duties.