The Punjab and Haryana High Court outlines its reasons for dismissing a PIL on stubble burning.

On Wednesday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at addressing stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana [Arun Duggal And Others V/S State Of Punjab And Others]. The petitioners sought urgent measures to curb the practice, which they claimed significantly contributes to the worsening air quality in the region.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal acknowledged that the issue was already under consideration by the Supreme Court, which was monitoring efforts to tackle stubble burning as part of its broader review of air pollution. The Court noted that the petitioners were free to raise their grievances directly before the apex court by following the proper procedure.
“The petitioner is free to raise his grievance before the apex court by adopting the right procedure. With the aforesaid liberty, this Court declines interference on merits and disposes of the petition,” the Bench stated.
Advocate Mandeep Singh Vinaik, representing the petitioners, argued that the PIL concerned a localized issue and was distinct from the broader air pollution issue being handled by the Supreme Court. He emphasized the urgent nature of the problem, describing it as a crisis of such magnitude that it could be compared to a nuclear disaster. Vinaik urged the High Court to address this specific issue, despite the ongoing case in the Supreme Court.
However, Additional Solicitor General Satyapal Jain and Additional Advocate General Haryana Deepak Balyan argued that the matter was already being dealt with in the MC Mehta case, which was being heard by the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the issue of stubble burning had already been brought before the apex court, and it was scheduled for a hearing on Thursday.
When the petitioners’ counsel insisted on issuing a notice in the PIL, the Court responded, “Why should there be a difference of opinion? There can be a difference of opinion between two courts, that should be avoided.” The Court then disposed of the PIL, giving the petitioners the option to approach the Supreme Court in the ongoing matter.
The PIL was filed by Arun Duggal, Rajiv Kumar Vij, and Rajan Mehta, who argued that stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana was a major contributor to air pollution in the region and surrounding areas. The petitioners called for urgent steps to be taken to address the issue.
The Supreme Court has previously criticized the lack of effective measures against stubble burning. In October, the Court summoned the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana for failing to take adequate action on the matter. On November 28, the apex court reaffirmed its intention to continue hearing the case to find a long-term solution to the air pollution crisis, which includes addressing the problem of stubble burning in the two states.