Pollution in Delhi-NCR: Supreme Court refuses to hear the new petition, said- what is the need of it now?
Supreme Court on Delhi NCR Air Pollution: The Supreme Court refused to hear this petition on Friday and remarked that there are already pending petitions in this matter and in such a situation what is the need for a new petition. The Supreme Court told lawyer Shashank that instead of filing a new petition, you should file an intervention application in the pending petitions.
New Delhi: Another petition has been filed in the case of pollution in Delhi-NCR, which the Supreme Court has refused to hear. Lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha has filed a petition in the Supreme Court regarding air pollution in Delhi-NCR and has made the Central Government, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, and UP Governments a party. Let us tell you that many petitions are already pending in the Supreme Court on this issue.
The Supreme Court refused to hear this petition on Friday and remarked that petitions are already pending in this matter and in such a situation what is the need for a new petition. The Supreme Court told lawyer Shashank that instead of filing a new petition, you should file an intervention application in the pending petitions.
Let us tell you that earlier last month, the Supreme Court refused an urgent hearing on a PIL seeking the issuance of new guidelines regarding stubble burning to prevent air pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region. A bench of Chief Justice Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli and Justice JB Pardiwala had asked advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, who filed the PIL, whether merely banning stubble burning would help in controlling air pollution.
The Chief Justice had asked Jha what is the solution from your side for the pollution of Delhi. On the issue of pollution due to stubble burning, the bench had said that then we should ban it? Will it stop? Should we apply this to every farmer? Think of some suitable solutions. There are some things in which the courts can do something and in some things the courts cannot do, we are there to look at the judicial aspects. He had said, ‘We have listened to you and it will not be taken now.’
