thestudyiashindi

[thestudyiashindi]

Trapped in the Haze

Every winter, a thick, smoky haze blankets northern India, with cities like Delhi experiencing hazardous pollution levels. This is largely due to the age-old practice of stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana. Burning crop residue, or stubble, remains the quickest and cheapest way for farmers to clear fields after the paddy harvest, even though this method of clearing fields harms health, air quality, and the environment. Despite government policies and programmes aimed at curbing stubble burning, the high cost of machinery, lack of direct incentives, and limited time to prepare fields for the next crop leave farmers feeling trapped. This complex problem continues to create a recurring cycle of pollution affecting millions.

Practice of Stubble Burning

Stubble burning, the practice of setting fire to leftover plant stalks after harvesting, has long been a common method for farmers in Punjab and Haryana. For them, burning the stubble is a fast and cheap way to clear the fields before planting wheat, the next crop in their cycle. This practice requires no special equipment, making it accessible for small-scale farmers who often face economic pressures. Yet, this approach has severe consequences for air quality, health, and the environment.

Reasons Behind Stubble Burning

Economic Constraints and Lack of Affordable Alternatives: Small farmers face financial pressures that make sustainable options for crop residue management difficult. Expensive machines like balers and super-seeders are essential to managing crop residue without burning, but their cost is prohibitive for most small-scale farmers​. Government subsidies aimed at promoting these machines have not been effective or accessible enough to address the scale of the problem. As a result, many farmers revert to the cheaper and faster method of burning.

Shrinking Cultivation Window: With the enactment of the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act in 2009, the government aimed to conserve water by delaying paddy planting until mid-June. However, this law also reduced the timeframe between paddy harvest and wheat sowing, making it even harder for farmers to adopt alternative residue management methods. This shrinking window pressures farmers to burn stubble quickly so they can move on to wheat planting​.

Lack of Direct Incentives and Financial Support: Despite the potential of direct financial incentives to discourage stubble burning, the Central government has not yet implemented a robust programme to support this. The Punjab government proposed a system where the Central and State governments would share the cost, providing ₹2,500 per acre as an incentive for farmers to manage stubble sustainably. However, this proposal has not been approved. Without significant direct support, farmers are less motivated to switch from burning to sustainable practices​.

Environmental and Health Impacts

The environmental and health impacts of stubble burning are far-reaching. The smoke produced by burning fields travels across states, causing air quality to deteriorate drastically in densely populated areas like Delhi. In 2023, Delhi’s air quality index (AQI) reached hazardous levels, with PM2.5 concentrations—fine particles harmful to human health—exceeding WHO safety guidelines by more than ten times. Such high levels of pollution can cause serious respiratory issues, aggravate chronic lung diseases, and even increase the risk of lung cancer​. These health concerns extend to rural areas, affecting not only city dwellers but also farmers and villagers exposed to the harmful pollutants on a daily basis.

Government Efforts and Policy Gaps

Subsidies for Crop Residue Management (CRM) Machines: The Central government introduced a subsidy scheme in 2018 to encourage farmers to use CRM machines. Although this initiative aimed to help farmers manage crop residue without burning, these subsidies have not effectively addressed the problem. Many farmers find it challenging to operate and maintain these machines, and reports indicate that many of the subsidised machines have become redundant due to high operational costs​.

Legal Actions and Penalties: In recent years, the government and courts have imposed penalties on farmers who burn stubble. Some farmers even face red entries in their records, which can affect their ability to get loans or sell land. However, these punitive measures often feel unjust to farmers, who are already facing economic hardship. Punishing them for a practice they feel they cannot avoid only adds to their burden, and coercive measures alone have proven insufficient in stopping the practice​.

Success of Incentive Programmes in Haryana: Haryana’s initiative to offer a ₹1,000 per acre incentive for farmers who sell stubble to contractors has seen some success. Farmers who participate in this programme help supply stubble for biofuel production, reducing the amount of residue burned. This programme illustrates that with proper incentives, farmers are willing to adopt alternatives to burning. However, the programme is currently limited in scale and would need substantial expansion to address the problem on a larger scale​.

Long-Term Solutions: Diversification and Sustainable Agriculture

Experts in agricultural policy suggest that one of the most promising solutions is to diversify the types of crops grown. In particular, farmers could shift away from water-intensive crops like paddy to alternatives that produce less residue, such as cotton and sugarcane. However, these alternative crops do not receive the same minimum support price (MSP) as paddy, making them less attractive to farmers​. For crop diversification to be successful, the government would need to offer strong support for these alternative crops, including reliable pricing and better market access.

The Historical Context of Stubble Burning

The roots of the stubble burning issue can be traced back to the Green Revolution, which transformed Punjab into a rice-growing region to ensure food security. Traditionally, Punjab did not grow paddy, as its climate and soil were not naturally suited for it. However, with government support and high-yielding crop varieties, paddy production soared. Mechanised farming methods, such as combine harvesters, left long stubble in the fields, which could not be easily ploughed back into the soil. Consequently, burning became the easiest option. The legacy of these policy changes continues to impact farmers, who are now reliant on a crop that poses serious challenges for residue management​.

Ethical Concerns and the Farmer’s Perspective

Many farmers feel the current approach to stubble burning is unfair. With limited resources and alternatives, they find themselves penalised for a practice that feels like a necessity rather than a choice. It is important to think about whether it is fair to punish poor farmers, especially since forcing them to change will not work on its own. Farmer unions and local organisations argue for a balanced approach that includes incentives and practical support rather than solely relying on penalties.

Technological Innovations and Potential Solutions

Exploring innovative and affordable technologies for stubble management could help. Newer technologies, like small-scale machines suited to smaller farms or community machinery sharing programmes, could make sustainable residue management accessible to more farmers. Moreover, integrating stubble into biofuel production or other industries, as Haryana’s incentive programme illustrates, offers promising possibilities. With such measures, India could take a step forward in addressing this recurring problem​.

Conclusion

Stubble burning is a complex, multifaceted issue tied to historical agricultural policies, economic pressures, and environmental impacts. Although the government has implemented several measures to curb the practice, the support provided often falls short of the real needs of farmers. Expanding incentive programmes, investing in sustainable agricultural practices, and making affordable technology accessible to small-scale farmers are critical steps to reducing stubble burning. With these efforts, the thick haze that envelops northern India each winter could eventually start to clear, benefiting both the farmers and the millions affected by air pollution across the region.

[thestudyiashindi]

Balancing Rights and Welfare.

In India, the Rights and Welfare to own property and the government’s power to take it for public good have often conflicted. This ongoing debate was highlighted in a recent case, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided by the Supreme Court of India. The case focused on an important question: Should private property always be considered something that can serve the entire community? This question is not new; India’s leaders have faced it since the 1970s when socialist ideas inspired changes to the Constitution. Today, the Supreme Court’s decision seeks to balance property rights with public welfare, considering both personal freedoms and the country’s changing needs.

The 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments for Rights and Welfare

In 1971, the Indian government introduced two important amendments—the 25th and 26th—to support socialist ideals. These amendments aimed to give the government greater control over property to promote fairer distribution of resources. Under the 25th Amendment, the term “compensation” in Article 31 was replaced with “amount,” meaning that the government could pay less than market value when acquiring private land. It also added Article 31C, giving priority to Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which support the distribution of resources for the common good and prevent wealth from gathering in only a few hands.

The 26th Amendment went further, abolishing special payments to former princes, known as “privy purses.” This helped establish an equal society where everyone could benefit, not just a privileged few. Together, these amendments encouraged a system where the government could control resources to help everyone, especially the less fortunate.

Strengthening Public Welfare Through Articles 39(b) and 39(c)

The changes to the Constitution allowed the government to enforce Articles 39(b) and (c) more strongly. Article 39(b) calls for resource distribution to benefit everyone, while Article 39(c) works to prevent wealth concentration. With the 25th Amendment, the government could acquire land more easily to build schools, hospitals, and other public resources. This amendment prioritised public welfare over individual property rights, which meant the government could take land if it would help a larger number of people.

The Supreme Court Case: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the question of property rights in the case Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra. The case arose from a law passed by the Maharashtra state government in 1986, which allowed the government to take over poorly maintained buildings from landlords and give them to tenants. This was meant to protect tenants from unsafe living conditions. However, landlords argued that this law violated their property rights.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, representing the majority of the judges, decided that not all private property could automatically be taken by the government for community purposes. Instead, the Court ruled that only certain types of property could be considered “material resources of the community,” depending on factors like scarcity, necessity, and the benefit to the community. This new approach means that the government can only acquire private property when it clearly serves the community’s interests.

Balancing Rights with Judicial Review on Rights and Welfare.

The Court’s ruling placed limits on the government’s power to acquire private property by strengthening the role of judicial review. Judicial review allows courts to examine government actions and decide whether they are fair and just. Previously, the government could simply claim that a law followed Article 39(b) and avoid judicial review. Now, however, the Court requires a case-by-case examination to ensure the law truly benefits the public and respects property owners’ rights.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in his dissenting opinion, argued that Parliament should have the final say on what counts as community resources, since elected representatives are responsible for making decisions on public welfare. Meanwhile, Justice B.V. Nagarathna added that personal items, like someone’s clothes or furniture, should never be considered community resources, emphasising the importance of respecting individual privacy.

Socialist Roots and the Shift to a Balanced Approach

The new ruling is a shift from India’s earlier socialist view, inspired by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who believed that all property could be controlled by the government to benefit society. This older view supported nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but India’s economic direction has since changed. The Court’s ruling acknowledges this shift and supports a welfare model that balances private ownership with public needs rather than focusing solely on socialist ideals.

The judgment also brings in the concept of “intergenerational equity.” This means that today’s property owners have a responsibility to future generations, ensuring that resources are used wisely and are available for the next generation. This idea encourages sustainable development and responsible ownership, aligning with a vision of long-term community welfare.

The Influence of Past Interpretations

The recent judgment also revisits and adapts earlier interpretations of property rights. In the past, Justice Krishna Iyer argued that all essential resources should serve the community and that the government should be able to control them. However, today’s Court chose a more balanced approach, recognising that while public welfare is essential, private property rights are also valuable in a modern, market-driven economy. This change reflects India’s growth from a strictly state-controlled economy to a mixed one that respects both private and public interests.

The Case’s Broader Socio-Economic Impact

This ruling comes at a time when India balances socialism with capitalist growth. After independence, the government often took over private industries to build a state-led economy. Over time, however, private investment has become essential to the nation’s economic growth. This Supreme Court ruling supports this new approach, respecting both community needs and private investment.

For property owners, the ruling offers protection, assuring them that their land cannot be taken without reason. It encourages a stable environment for people and businesses to invest without fearing that the government will take away their property unfairly. For the government, it means any property acquisition must be justified as genuinely benefiting the public.

The Continuing Story of Property Rights

This case reminds us of Saeed Akhtar Mirza’s film Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho, where the character Mohan Joshi fights for his right to live in a safe home despite his landlord’s neglect. Like in the film, this legal battle has gone on for decades, with both landlords and tenants waiting years for a decision. Although the nine-judge bench’s decision offers clarity, it leaves some questions open, as another bench will decide if the 1986 law is constitutional.

The judgment illustrates how the law can help people while also respecting personal property rights. It shows that both sides—property owners and the government—can be protected through fair laws.

Future Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has several long-term implications for both property owners and the government. First, it reinforces the right to private property, establishing that private ownership is not only constitutionally protected but also respected within the legal framework. For property owners, this judgment is a form of protection, as the government must now follow clear guidelines and provide fair compensation if it wishes to acquire private property​.

For India’s investment climate, this judgment is also significant. By protecting property rights, the Court has created a stable environment for investors. This move encourages individuals and companies to invest in private property without the fear of sudden, unjust acquisition by the state. As a result, this judgment can have a positive impact on India’s economy, supporting both domestic and foreign investments.

Conclusion

India’s journey with property rights reflects a continuous search for balance. The 25th and 26th Amendments gave the government greater control for public welfare, but today’s Supreme Court decision adds important safeguards for individuals. By allowing the government to take property only when it serves the community and compensating owners fairly, The Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra judgment protects both individual rights and public welfare. It represents a new direction in Indian constitutional law, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach to eminent domain, and emphasising the importance of fairness and justice in government policies. This judgment is a milestone that reflects India’s evolving socio-economic landscape. It sets a guiding example for future cases, helping India grow as a country where personal responsibility and community needs are respected. As India develops, this balanced approach supports a vision of fairness and inclusion, ensuring that both private rights and public welfare are equally valued in the nation’s future.