Evaluate the effectiveness of CAQM as a statutory inter-state body in tackling NCR air pollution. What institutional gaps remain?

The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) was set up under the CAQM in NCR and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021. It replaced the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) of 1998 with a single statutory body covering Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and UP [2]. It has made coordination much better, but enforcement and jurisdiction gaps remain.

Effectiveness: Strengths

• Legal teeth: CAQM's directions are binding. Breaking them can bring up to 5 years' jail or a ₹1 crore fine, and appeals go to the NGT [2].
• Inter-state reach: it covers "adjoining areas" of the four states wherever a pollution source there affects NCR air [2].
• Expert composition: it has independent technical members and representatives of CPCB, ISRO and NITI Aayog [2].
• Adaptive GRAP: the 2026 revision merges the Graded Response Action Plan into 48 actions. It moves curbs on diesel generator (DG) sets and old buses up to Stage-I and extends curbs on older cars to Sonipat [1].
• Field enforcement: its Enforcement Task Force issued 1,831 closure orders. 1,479 units reopened only after they complied [1].

Effectiveness: Limitations

• Reactive design: GRAP starts only after AQI has already worsened. It is an emergency brake, not a year-round clean-air plan [1].
• Dependence on states: CAQM sent 126 cases to state pollution boards (SPCBs/DPCC) for action [1]. In 2018, a Parliamentary Standing Committee had already flagged weak enforcement by Haryana, Punjab and UP on crop burning [4].
• Uneven state effort: Haryana-NCR met only 50% of its plantation target, while the other states exceeded theirs [1].
• Livelihood costs: blanket bans hurt daily-wage workers. The 2018 committee preferred strict enforcement of construction rules over bans [4].

Institutional Gaps Remaining

• Jurisdiction vs airshed: CAQM can bind only the four notified states [2]. The 2025 Standing Committee asked for airshed-level planning (the whole area whose air mixes) instead of state-by-state planning [3].
• Old evidence base: studies of what share of pollution comes from each source (source apportionment) are outdated [3].
• Weak monitoring and standards: 59 of 143 monitoring stations are still manual. The national air-quality standards (NAAQS) date from 2009 and are weaker than WHO guidelines for PM2.5 [3].
• Accountability: the committee asked that the implementing agency for each GRAP action be clearly named [3].
• No outcome reporting: CAQM reports activity, such as closures and saplings planted. It does not report how much AQI fell [1].

Overall, CAQM has replaced scattered, court-driven firefighting with a coordinated statutory system, so it is a partial success. To move from emergency response to prevention, it needs airshed-wide reach, fresh source studies, NAAQS aligned with WHO levels and reporting on actual results. Together with year-round measures under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), these steps would help secure the right to clean air under Article 21 and SDG 3.9.