The Supreme Court on Monday (November 17) asked the Delhi government to submit a detailed affidavit explaining what kind of equipment it uses to monitor the Air Quality Index (AQI) and how effective these machines really are. The court also made it clear that it would not impose extremely strict measures such as a year-round construction ban or a complete stop on vehicle movement in Delhi-NCR. The judges said that the national capital “cannot be brought to a standstill” in the name of fighting pollution.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai was hearing a petition linked to stubble burning and its impact on pollution levels in Delhi and its surrounding areas. During the hearing, the court-appointed advisor, Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, raised serious concerns. She told the court that there were reports and videos showing water being sprinkled near AQI monitoring stations, which could artificially lower pollution readings. She also said that some of the monitoring equipment being used might be old and not accurate enough.

However, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union government, strongly disagreed. She said the devices being used in Delhi were modern, highly advanced, and “among the best used worldwide.” When the discussion turned to the possibility of severe restrictions to control pollution, the court refused to support extreme measures.

The Bench, which also included Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, explained that many migrants from states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh work in Delhi as daily wage labourers. Harsh steps such as shutting down all construction or stopping movement would harm these workers the most. The judges said, “The solution cannot be worse than the problem.”

The court was reviewing several petitions on Delhi-NCR’s long-standing air pollution crisis. This hearing took place at a time when Delhi’s air quality had again fallen to the “very poor” category and was expected to reach the “severe” level between November 17 and 19. Since November 11, the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) has been in Stage III, which means a ban on non-essential construction, restrictions on polluting activities, and stricter checks on industries.

The court also rejected a request by advocate Sankaranarayanan, who urged the judges to take a “bold decision” and shut all activities allowed even under GRAP-I throughout the year. The Bench said that such extreme measures are not part of the legal framework and are not practically possible under the Constitution.