Stubble-Burning: Stand of Government and Judiciary

Stubble Burning: A Crisis of Air and Accountability

On 17 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India revived an old debate, suggesting the possibility of criminal prosecution or even a new law to tackle stubble burning—a practice that contributes heavily to the winter smog in northern India. The Union government, however, struck a noticeably defensive tone, opposing any punitive action against farmers. It argued instead for collaborative policies steeped in incentives and highlighted existing exemptions under the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act, 2021. But this exchange underscored a deeper question: Is India's institutional architecture equipped to handle this public health and environmental emergency without reducing it to political theatrics?

The numbers paint a grim picture. Recent data attributed 40% of Delhi’s worsening air quality in November to crop residue burning in neighbouring Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change identified nearly 85,000 stubble-burning incidents in Punjab alone during the 2023 harvest season. A staggering contradiction emerges here: while the Centre pours significant subsidies into in-situ and ex-situ remediation—nearly ₹600 crore allocated under the Crop Residue Management Scheme for 2023-24—the problem continues to expand.

The Institutional Tapestry: Too Many Threads, Too Few Results

At the heart of the policy response lies the Crop Residue Management Scheme, implemented since 2018-19 by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (DA&FW) to address stubble burning in four key regions—Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi. The scheme's assistance ranges from 50% subsidy for farm implements like Happy Seeders to 80% financial support for Custom Hiring Centres (CHCs). Moreover, it promotes biomass supply chains with ₹1.5 crore capital assistance.

The CAQM, established under a dedicated Act in 2021, serves as the principal coordinating body for implementing such measures and issuing directives to industrial units and state governments. Monitoring mechanisms have also been bolstered—data from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) now tracks stubble-burning incidents using remote sensing. Yet, despite this elaborate framework, implementation shows major gaps. For one, while machinery subsidies exist on paper, cash-strapped farmers often lack the upfront capital to procure them. In Punjab, barely 15% of farmers had accessed Happy Seeders as of 2024, highlighting the limited outreach of these efforts.

Caught Between the Judiciary and the Executive

The Supreme Court's intervention, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, suggests frustration with the efficacy of existing measures. His proposal for criminal prosecution—echoing earlier attempts in 2020—raises concerns over punitive overreach. The Centre, for its part, opposes such action, invoking a clause in the CAQM Act exempting farmers from penalties. This reflects a pragmatic, if politically loaded, calculation: jailing farmers is seen as untenable in agrarian heartlands already fraught with resentment post the 2020-21 farm law protests.

The irony, however, is hard to miss. Both the judiciary and the executive agree on the urgency of the problem, yet disagree on the means. The Supreme Court demands stricter enforcement mechanisms, the Centre persists with subsidies and awareness campaigns, and the states—key implementation players—swing between compliance and inertia. For instance, Punjab has consistently underspent its allocated funds for crop residue management, citing bureaucratic delays in fund release and lack of clear accountability.

What Other Countries Get Right

Contrast this with a country like China, where a similar stubble-burning crisis in the Yangtze River Basin was tackled with a mix of strict legal controls and aggressive incentivisation. Local governments imposed hefty fines on repeat offenders while subsidising eco-friendly alternatives like mulching machines and biofuel applications. In Jiangsu Province, by 2022, crop-residue burning incidents plummeted by 80%, thanks to robust enforcement paired with practical financial support. India's challenge lies not in the absence of such measures but in its inability to replicate them at scale or with similar coordination.

Structural Limitations: Fragmented Responsibilities

The Indian framework suffers from fractured institutional mandates. The CAQM oversees air quality but lacks enforcement capacity at the grassroots level. State governments control subsidy disbursal yet depend on central funding. Farmers, meanwhile, have little economic incentive to switch to sustainable practices without significant operational support. This diffusion of responsibility dilutes accountability and encourages a game of passing the buck.

Further, the financial incentives under the Crop Residue Management Scheme cater disproportionately to larger farmers. Marginal and small-scale cultivators, who constitute 86% of agricultural labour according to the 2019 Agriculture Census, are left grappling with the high upfront costs of machinery. Unless this structural imbalance in policy design is corrected, these farmers will be trapped in the same unsustainable cycle.

The Way Forward: Metrics to Watch

Success in tackling stubble burning cannot merely be measured by a reduction in incidents. Policymakers must track ancillary impacts: year-round air quality improvement, adoption rates of subsidised equipment, and soil quality restoration trends. Increasing transparency in fund utilisation, particularly at state and panchayat levels, is critical. Additionally, serious investments must be made in research to develop low-cost, scalable alternatives for small and marginal farmers.

What remains unresolved, however, is the core political economy tension: enforcement versus empathy. While criminalisation may deter some offenders in the short term, it risks alienating the very constituency the government aims to engage. A balanced approach—where enforceable penalties are reserved for repeat offenders while comprehensive economic support programmes are scaled up—may offer a more sustainable model.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions