The Supreme Court expressed frustration with the Maharashtra government on Friday for its failure to allocate necessary funds for solid waste treatment plants within the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation, emphasizing the state’s obligation to uphold environmental protections.
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the case, were particularly critical of the state’s prior assertions of insufficient funds for such critical infrastructure projects. The bench has mandated the state to provide a comprehensive affidavit by February 21, detailing the scheduled release of funds and reporting on which civic bodies in Maharashtra are adhering to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The issue escalated during a session on January 15, when the Urban Development Department of Mumbai claimed a lack of funds for these essential projects, prompting the court to summon the principal secretary to explain this stance via video-conferencing on January 24. The justices expressed bewilderment over the state’s justification, linking non-compliance directly to escalating air pollution issues.
During Friday’s hearing, Principal Secretary H. Govindraj was questioned about the state’s reluctance to fund the necessary projects, with the bench probing deeper into the financial allocations of the government. “Where is the money going?” Justice Bhuyan asked, highlighting the need for transparency in the funding of environmental protection measures.
Govindraj assured that funds would be earmarked in the next fiscal year and that the detailed project reports would be approved by April 2024. However, the bench criticized this promise as conditional and vague, indicating that the allocation might depend on the cancellation of other projects or potential savings, which they deemed a “roundabout” method of funding.
This case arose from an appeal by the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order in Pune, which was initially addressed by the Supreme Court on December 12, 2023. The NGT had ordered the municipal body to pay compensation, a directive that the Supreme Court stayed pending further review. However, the court also required the appellant to outline how it intended to comply with the 2016 solid waste management regulations and address the issue of legacy waste, as pointed out by the tribunal.
