The Supreme Court of India delivered a sharp rebuke to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on Tuesday, January 7, 2026, accusing the expert body of failing in its duty to tackle the capital region's persistent air pollution crisis. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed deep dissatisfaction with the CAQM's pace and demanded urgent, concrete action.
Court's Stern Directive to the Pollution Watchdog
The apex court observed that the CAQM "appears to be in no hurry" to pinpoint the definitive causes behind the worsening Air Quality Index (AQI) in Delhi-NCR or to devise long-term solutions. The bench emphasized that an expert body must first identify the sources of pollution, approximate their contribution, and then formulate a phased plan to address them, starting with the biggest contributors.
"First of all, an expert body like CAQM should identify the reasons, and approximate attribution to them," CJI Surya Kant remarked. He directed that these reasons be made public so that stakeholders and the general populace are informed, after which suggestions can be invited.
The court specifically ordered the CAQM to convene a meeting of experts within two weeks and place a detailed report based on their deliberations on record before the next hearing. It instructed the commission to immediately begin considering sustainable, long-term measures to be implemented in stages.
Traffic Congestion and the Two-Month Delay Request
The court's ire was further provoked when Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the CAQM, requested an additional two months to develop a comprehensive plan to address traffic congestion at toll plazas on Delhi's borders—a known contributor to vehicular pollution.
Bhati explained that issues like the collection of the Environmental Compensation Charge (ECC), toll operations, traffic snarls at borders, and inter-agency coordination are complex and interlinked, necessitating more time. She informed the court that a meeting was held on January 2 with representatives from the Delhi government, NHAI, Gurugram Municipal Development Authority, and the MCD.
The bench, however, found this timeline unacceptable. "By holding a meeting on January 2 and telling us that now we will come after two months, that is not acceptable to us. Then CAQM is failing in performing its duty," the CJI stated.
Beyond Quick Fixes: The Need for Prudent, Long-Term Strategy
The Supreme Court highlighted the complexities involved in crafting effective solutions, cautioning against knee-jerk reactions. While acknowledging that heavy vehicles and construction are significant polluters, the CJI noted the practical challenges of simply halting these activities.
"It's very easy to say heavy trucks are responsible. But can you afford to stop the trucks and buses? How will the common man travel? What about day-to-day supplies?" he questioned. The court stressed that any long-term plan must include robust alternatives that can meet future needs.
Similarly, on construction bans, the CJI noted the city's housing needs and said a blanket prohibition may not be prudent without cost-effective alternatives. He also referenced government data to counter the common narrative on stubble burning, pointing out that during the COVID-19 pandemic, when stubble burning was at its peak, Delhi's skies were clear, suggesting other factors are at play.
The court dismissed the CAQM's status report as silent on most issues raised earlier and warned that "inordinate delay in finding out solutions will lead to further complications." The hearing stemmed from a plea by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in December 2025, which claimed that congestion at MCD-run toll plazas was adding to pollution. The court had then asked authorities to consider relocating or temporarily closing these plazas.
