Introduction

In light of worsening air pollution across northern India, particularly during the winter months, the Supreme Court has recently proposed prosecuting farmers engaged in stubble burning, including the possibility of imprisonment. This suggestion aims to deter the practice, especially in pollution-prone regions such as Delhi-NCR, Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. However, such punitive measures have drawn criticism for being potentially unrealistic and lacking empathy for the socio-economic challenges farmers face. Stubble burning, while a key environmental concern, is deeply embedded in broader issues of agricultural practice, technological access, economic structures, legal frameworks, and social justice.

Understanding the Practice of Stubble Burning

Stubble burning refers to the deliberate setting of fire to leftover crop residue—mainly from paddy—after the harvest, in order to quickly clear fields for sowing the next crop, typically wheat. This practice is most prevalent in Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh, and peaks during October and November. Farmers resort to burning due to a narrow 15–20 day sowing window between kharif and rabi crops, compounded by the high cost and limited availability of alternative disposal methods. Technological options like the Happy Seeder are often prohibitively expensive and fuel-intensive. Moreover, crop diversification has remained limited, largely because state water policies and assured procurement through Minimum Support Prices (MSP) continue to incentivise paddy cultivation.

Judicial Perspective and Concerns

The Supreme Court observed that repeated directives and current institutional measures have failed to curb the problem. It suggested that prosecution and potential imprisonment of offenders could serve as a strong deterrent. However, past attempts at penalisation, including fines and arrests, have resulted in resentment and alienation among farmers. There is growing concern that criminalising a practice rooted in structural limitations might set a troubling precedent, effectively punishing individuals for actions tied to their livelihood and lack of viable alternatives.

Legal and Institutional Frameworks in Place

The current legal and institutional setup for tackling air pollution includes several components. The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), established in 2020, holds the authority to issue directives for pollution control but has explicitly exempted farmers from criminal prosecution. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides for penalties against polluting activities, and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has previously imposed fines for incidents of stubble burning. States like Punjab and Haryana have also enacted laws to restrict burning, but enforcement remains weak due to the scale of the issue and socio-political considerations.

Environmental Impact and Broader Pollution Landscape

Stubble burning significantly contributes to seasonal air pollution. According to estimates by SAFAR under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), it accounts for 15–20% of PM2.5 levels in Delhi during the peak winter period. However, other sources—including vehicular emissions (approximately 40%), industrial activity, construction dust, and waste burning—constitute more persistent and year-round contributors. Many farmers have criticised the singular focus on their practices, pointing to a perceived “urban bias” in pollution discourse that overlooks the city-based sources responsible for a larger pollution footprint.

Technological Alternatives and Their Limitations

·       Several technologies have been developed to provide alternatives to stubble burning. Machines such as the Happy Seeder and Super Seeder allow direct sowing of wheat into standing stubble, but their high costs and energy demands limit adoption. The Pusa Bio-Decomposer, developed by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), offers a microbial solution that converts stubble into manure within 15–20 days, though uptake remains constrained due to logistical challenges.

·       Ex-situ solutions—such as using crop residue in biomass power generation, bio-CNG production, paper and pulp industries, or packaging—have been slow to scale due to inadequate infrastructure and weak market linkages. In-situ management, which involves retaining stubble in the field to improve soil quality, also requires better dissemination, policy support, and sustained subsidies to become viable for small and marginal farmers.

Administrative and Policy Hurdles

Implementation gaps hinder progress. Subsidised machinery often remains idle or concentrated in the hands of large landholders, leading to inefficiencies and inequity. Coordination failures between central, state, and local governments also complicate enforcement and funding mechanisms. Additionally, repeated advisories for crop diversification have failed to shift the agricultural landscape away from paddy, as MSP-backed procurement continues to reinforce its dominance.

Political and Governance Challenges

Recent farmer protests and agitations reflect the political sensitivity surrounding agricultural reforms and environmental regulations. Any attempt to criminalise stubble burning risks exacerbating the trust deficit between state institutions and the farming community. A punitive, top-down approach may also undermine the principles of cooperative federalism—especially given that agriculture is a state subject while pollution is a national concern. Policy responses must balance environmental urgency with socio-political realities.

Global Experiences and Lessons for India

International models offer relevant insights. In China, the government actively promotes the use of crop residue in biomass and biogas production, with extensive state support for collection and processing. In the European Union, policy encourages ploughing back residue into the soil, backed by subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. These examples highlight that punitive strategies alone are insufficient. Without affordable technologies, accessible finance, and strong market incentives, behavioural change at scale is unlikely.

A Constructive Path Forward

·       A criminal justice approach to stubble burning risks deepening farmer alienation and should be avoided. Instead, the issue demands farmer-centric solutions rooted in long-term planning and cooperative implementation. Scaling up affordable technologies like the Pusa Decomposer, promoting mechanisation through Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and cooperatives, and investing in bio-energy infrastructure can create sustainable alternatives. Direct economic incentives to farmers for managing residue effectively, along with expansion of schemes like the Crop Residue Management Fund, would provide immediate relief.

·       Encouraging crop diversification—moving away from water-intensive paddy towards maize, millets, or pulses—requires aligning MSPs and procurement systems to support alternate crops. Urban areas, too, must be held accountable for year-round pollution through stricter enforcement and technological upgrades. Active community engagement through panchayats, FPOs, and NGOs is vital to building awareness and ensuring the success of grassroots initiatives. Integrating stubble management strategies into India’s larger net-zero and circular economy goals will ensure a more sustainable and inclusive response.

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s proposal to prosecute farmers engaging in stubble burning may appear as a strong deterrent, it risks alienating a vital stakeholder group whose actions are shaped by structural constraints, not intent to harm. Stubble burning is not merely a legal or environmental issue—it is a deeply intertwined socio-economic and policy challenge. Addressing it effectively requires a holistic, cooperative, and empathetic approach that prioritises technological innovation, economic support, institutional coordination, and above all, the inclusion of farmers as partners in the solution rather than subjects of punishment.