“TV leads to more pollution than debate”: Blame game between CJI

Delhi’s air quality crisis has sparked a debate as to whether farm fires are a major contributing factor.

New Delhi:

The government should pursue farmers against stubble burning, the Supreme Court said today, saying it does not want to penalize farmers even as the air quality crisis continues to escalate in Delhi and neighboring cities.

Chief Justice NV Ramana said today, “We do not want to penalize farmers. We have already requested the Center not to burn stubble for at least a week.”

“The debate on TV is creating more pollution than any other sources. Everyone has their own agenda there. We are trying to find a solution here,” the Chief Justice said. The court saw the third day of hearing on air pollution since last week. ,

His scathing remarks were in response to the tussle between the Delhi government and the Center over the statistics of stubble burning.

As the hearing began, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the court that he faced “vulgar comments” on the data presented in the court on Monday.

“We heard some lewd statements about me on TV media that I misled the court by saying that the contribution of stubble burning is only 4-7 per cent. We had said in our affidavit that some factors like stubble burning will increase the pollution after October. Contribute. Not so. Whole year,” he told the court.

To this, Chief Justice Ramana replied, “These figures are not important to us. Unless the parties in the case are trying to divert the issue. We are concerned to reduce pollution. When you hold a public office, If you wear it, you are bound to receive such criticism. When the conscience is clear, there is no problem. Forget it.”

When Delhi government’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi was about to refer to the figures of the central agency SAFAR, the Chief Justice said: “If you look at today’s newspaper, every newspaper has its own figures.”

“Forget politics… it is our duty to tell you that stubble burning is a reason. It varies from 0 to 58% depending on the month we are talking about. The Solicitor General said 4 months Or it would have taken six months.-month average,” insisted Mr. Singhvi.

But Chief Justice Raman reprimanded him, saying, “If you keep on raising other things like this, the main issue will not be resolved.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *