The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre for making the environment protection law “toothless”, and said the provision under the CAQM Act which deals with penalty for stubble burning was not being implemented.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanulllah and Augustine George Masih said the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act of 2021 (CAQM Act) was enacted without creating required machinery for implementing the provision to curb air pollution.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said section 15 of the CAQM Act, which deals with penalty for stubble burning, will be implemented effectively as regulations for it will be issued in 10 days.

She submitted that an adjudicating officer will be appointed and all necessary actions will be taken to enforce the law effectively.

Bhati pointed out that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) has issued notices to senior administrative officials of Punjab and Haryana besides officials of the state pollution control boards and sought their response as to why action should not be taken against them.

The bench asked the CAQM who is taking your notices seriously as the procedure is not provided under the law.

"Please tell your chairperson of CAQM not to bail out these officials. We know what is happening on the ground," the bench said.

Bhati pointed out that over 1,000 cases of stubble burning have taken place in several districts of Punjab like Amritsar, Ferozepur, Patiala, Sangrur, Taran Taran.

On October 16, the top court had pulled up the Punjab and Haryana governments over the non-prosecution of violators found guilty of stubble burning while summoning the state chief secretaries to appear before it on October 23 for an explanation.

The top court has been upset over Punjab and Haryana governments not taking any steps to implement the directions issued by the CAQM in the national capital region (NCR) to stop stubble burning.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.