A significant division emerged on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, between India’s Supreme Court and the Union government concerning the perennial issue of stubble burning that plagues the country ahead of the winter season.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, presiding over a bench, firmly advocated for a return to criminal prosecution for farmers who engage in this practice, going as far as suggesting the introduction of new legislation specifically for this purpose. In stark contrast, the Centre maintained its stance that the preferred approach is to work cooperatively with farmers, rather than resorting to punitive measures like imprisonment.
This sharp exchange was triggered by submissions from amicus curiae, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who highlighted the recurring failure to address the problem. Despite “humongous” efforts and substantial central government funds, farmers continue to burn stubble, enveloping northern states in a thick, toxic haze every winter. Singh emphasized that the situation reverts to square one each season, despite numerous directives from the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Gavai directly questioned Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre: “Why do you not reintroduce criminal prosecution for stubble-burning? If some people are behind bars, it will send the right message.”
Ms. Bhati responded by attributing the ongoing challenge to implementation failures at the state level. She clarified that farmers had been granted an exemption from prosecution under the Commission for Air Quality Management Act, a decision rooted in government policy. She argued that criminal prosecution of farmers would not be a feasible solution.
Unconvinced, the CJI pressed further: “If you genuinely intend to protect the environment, why refrain from prosecution?”
Ms. Bhati reiterated the government’s commitment to engaging farmers as partners in resolving the issue.
However, the CJI offered a pointed rebuttal: “Do take them along, but ultimately, there must be a clear mechanism to address stubble. You should offer incentives, but also apply disincentives. The ‘carrot and stick’ approach is essential. You cannot be influenced purely by electoral considerations [referring to elections every five years].”
Ms. Bhati promptly clarified that the government’s policy was not driven by electoral expediency but was a fundamental approach. “It is not because of the five-yearly exercise. It is simply a matter of policy for us,” she affirmed.
While acknowledging the vital role of farmers in the nation, the Chief Justice underscored their responsibility towards environmental protection. “They provide us with food, but that doesn’t absolve them of their duty to protect the country’s environment. We are not advocating for routine penalties for farmers; rather, apply it selectively as a deterrent to convey a strong message,” he asserted.
In response, Ms. Bhati assured the court that the Centre would submit a comprehensive status report detailing the situation on the ground in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.
The CJI concluded with a stern warning: “You must bring all states together and formulate a uniform policy [on stubble burning]. Consider this seriously, or we will be compelled to issue a mandamus. This problem cannot be viewed solely through the lens of electoral cycles.”