Decoding air pollution concerns in Delhi-NCR

Source: The post  “Decoding air pollution concerns in Delhi-NCR’’ has been created, based on “Decoding air pollution concerns in Delhi-NCR” published in “The Hindu” on 27th December 2025.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-3- Environment

Context: Delhi–NCR has been facing severe air pollution, particularly due to high concentrations of PM2.5 and toxic gases such as nitrogen oxides, benzene, and carbon monoxide. Although scientific evidence shows that vehicular emissions are the dominant source, the responsibility for deteriorating air quality is frequently placed on stubble-burning farmers in neighbouring States. This situation raises serious concerns regarding the correct application of the Polluter Pays Principle in India.

Polluter Pays Principle (PPP): Meaning and Legal Position

1. The Polluter Pays Principle states that any person or entity that causes environmental pollution must bear the cost of preventing, controlling, and remedying the damage caused.
2. The Supreme Court of India recognised the PPP as part of Indian environmental law in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996).
3. This judicial recognition later led to statutory incorporation of the principle under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
4. The primary objective of PPP is to internalise environmental costs and ensure accountability of polluters.

Difficulty in Applying PPP to Delhi–NCR Air Pollution

1. Air pollution in Delhi–NCR arises from multiple sources such as vehicles, industries, construction activities, waste burning, and seasonal agricultural burning.
2. The presence of both point sources and non-point sources makes precise identification and quantification of individual liability extremely complex.
3. Seasonal stubble burning contributes only partially to pollution levels and cannot be treated as the sole or dominant cause.
4. Moreover, air pollution in the region has a transboundary character, extending beyond State boundaries, which limits the effectiveness of PPP in isolation.

Judicial and Comparative Perspectives on Proportionality

1. The Standley case decided by the European Court of Justice in 1999 introduced the principle of proportionality in the application of PPP.
2. The Court held that farmers could not be held liable for nitrate pollution when significant pollution originated from industrial sources.
3. This judgment implies that liability under PPP must correspond to the actual contribution of each polluter.
4. Applying this reasoning to India, stubble-burning farmers cannot be held responsible for pollutants predominantly generated by vehicles and industries.

Transboundary Nature of Air Pollution

1. The Trail Smelter case (1941) established that a State can be held responsible for pollution causing damage beyond its territorial boundaries.
2. Scientific studies, including research published by Q. Zhang et al. in Nature (2017), confirm that PM2.5 pollution has regional and global health impacts.
3. International agreements such as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979) and the Gothenburg Protocol (2012) recognise PM2.5 as a long-distance pollutant.
4. These developments clearly show that air pollution is not merely a local issue but a regional and global challenge.

Shift from Polluter Pays to Government-Pays Principle in India

1. Indian courts have faced difficulties in determining the precise valuation and quantification of environmental damage caused by pollution.
2. In cases such as Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and S. Jagannath vs Union of India, the Supreme Court focused more on compensating victims and restoring the environment.
3. This approach aligns more closely with corrective justice rather than strict application of the Polluter Pays Principle.
4. As a result, the financial burden of pollution control and remediation increasingly falls on the government.

Role of the State and Administrative Limitations

1. India has enacted comprehensive environmental legislation such as the Water Act, 1974, the Air Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
2. Constitutional provisions under Articles 48A and 51A(g) impose duties on the State and citizens to protect the environment.
3. However, environmental authorities suffer from weak enforcement, administrative inefffficiencies, and limited capacity.
4. These failures further justify judicial intervention and increased government responsibility.

Activist Judiciary and Welfarist Approach

1. The Indian judiciary has adopted an increasingly activist role in environmental protection.
2. Courts often impose the primary responsibility for monitoring and controlling air pollution on governments.
3. This approach is based on welfarist considerations, as most victims of air pollution lack the resources to sue polluters individually.
4. However, this model weakens deterrence and fails to fully internalise the costs of pollution prevention.

Way Forward

1. A scientific source-apportionment mechanism should be institutionalised to ensure proportionate application of the Polluter Pays Principle.
2. Inter-State and regional cooperation must be strengthened to address the transboundary nature of air pollution.
3. Regulatory bodies should be empowered with better capacity, autonomy, and enforcement powers.
4. The approach should shift from a government-pays model to a shared-responsibility framework involving polluters, the State, and citizens.
5. Market-based instruments and stricter compliance mechanisms should be used to internalise pollution costs.
6. Farmers should be supported through incentives and technology rather than punitive measures.
7. Long-term solutions such as clean mobility, public transport expansion, and citizen environmental responsibility must be prioritised.

Conclusion: In India, the Polluter Pays Principle has effectively transformed into a government-pays principle. While this ensures immediate relief to citizens, it dilutes accountability and places a disproportionate burden on public resources. Sustainable air pollution control in Delhi–NCR requires proportional liability, regional cooperation, effective enforcement, and greater emphasis on individual environmental duties.

Question: Examine the challenges in applying the Polluter Pays Principle to air pollution in Delhi–NCR and suggest measures to make it more effective