Context: On December 30, 2024, India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) amended the Environment Protection Rules, granting thermal power plants an additional three years to comply with Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emission standards. However, no reason was given for this extension.
| What are the revised emission norms for Indian thermal plants? New Deadlines: On December 30, 2024, India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) announced a three-year extension for thermal power plants to meet sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emission standards. The updated deadlines are as follows: Category A (By Dec 31, 2027) – Thermal plants located within 10 km of the NCR or in cities with populations exceeding 1 million (e.g., Dadri NTPC, Koradi) must meet the standards first due to higher pollution levels and population density. Category B (By Dec 31, 2028) – Plants situated in critically polluted areas or non-attainment cities (e.g., Singrauli, Korba, Chandrapur) receive extended timelines because of significant environmental concerns. Category C (By Dec 31, 2029) – All other plants (e.g., Talcher, Mundra, Simhadri) are given the final deadline as they are located in lower-risk areas with relatively better air quality. Historical Context: The original norms were set in December 2015, with an initial deadline for compliance by December 2017. This deadline was later extended several times due to various challenges. |
What are the challenges around implementing the flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology?
- Technical and Financial Challenges: The adoption of FGD technology has been delayed mainly due to high costs, supply chain limitations, and operational difficulties. While many thermal power plants awarded contracts for FGD installation, progress has been slow, making it difficult to meet previous deadlines.
- Debate on Necessity: Recent research commissioned by NITI Aayog and carried out by CSIR-NEERI has raised doubts about the urgency of installing FGDs for air quality improvement. These studies suggest that greater emphasis should be placed on controlling particulate emissions instead. As a result, there is uncertainty and differing interpretations among stakeholders regarding compliance requirements.
How successful has India been in implementing emission norms for thermal power plants?
- Slow Progress: By late 2024, FGD installations had been completed for only around 22 GW of thermal capacity, accounting for less than 8% of India’s total coal-based power generation. The overall implementation has been much slower than expected since the regulations were introduced.
- Challenges in Compliance Monitoring: Ensuring adherence to emission norms remains a concern due to a lack of transparency. Pollution control boards have not consistently monitored compliance, raising questions about the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement.
What are the economic and environmental consequences of noncompliance and what measures are in place to address this?
- Health Risks: Delaying compliance deadlines increases health hazards, particularly in highly populated regions like Delhi-NCR, where air pollution is already a severe problem. Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) exposure is linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, further worsening public health concerns.
- Financial Impact on Consumers: Electricity regulators have permitted thermal power plants to transfer the costs of FGD installation to consumers, regardless of whether emission standards are met. As a result, consumers might bear the financial burden of pollution control systems that remain unused due to extended deadlines.
- Environmental Penalties: To address non-compliance beyond the revised timelines, the MoEFCC has implemented an environmental compensation mechanism. This system imposes penalties on power plants based on the duration of their non-compliance, with increasing fines over time. However, the effectiveness of these penalties in ensuring timely adherence remains uncertain.
Way forward:
Enhanced Enforcement & Support: Improve regulatory oversight through real-time emissions monitoring, impose strict penalties for non-compliance, and introduce financial incentives or subsidies to speed up FGD implementation.
Pragmatic Policy Strategy: Tackle technical and financial challenges by strengthening supply chains, promoting domestic FGD manufacturing, and ensuring a structured yet decisive transition, with priority given to high-risk regions.
Bhopal’s new order criminalising begging
Context: The Bhopal district collector recently prohibited begging in the district and enforced strict regulations, including legal action against both individuals who beg and those who offer alms.
What legal basis is Bhopal using to criminalize begging?
- Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: The orders issued by the collectors of Indore and Bhopal fall under this provision, which grants authority to District Magistrates or Executive Magistrates to take immediate action in cases of potential threats or public nuisance. This section allows officials to prohibit specific actions and enforce restrictions on residents or individuals frequenting a designated area.
- Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Violations of these orders will be dealt with under this section, which penalizes individuals who fail to comply with directives lawfully issued by a public servant.
What are the penalties for violating the order?
- Failing to comply with the order may lead to simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,500, or both.
- If the violation poses or is likely to pose a threat to human life, health, or safety, the imprisonment term can extend to one year, with a fine of up to ₹5,000.
How have different regions in India approached the issue?
- Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act, 1959: This was the first law against begging, originating from colonial-era policies aimed at removing destitute individuals, leprosy patients, and those with mental illnesses from public spaces by placing them in institutions. Mumbai still operates detention centers under this law, granting police the authority to detain individuals without visible means of livelihood, with punishments extending to detention for up to 10 years.
- Delhi High Court Ruling (2018): The Delhi High Court declared certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing begging in Delhi. The court emphasized that people resort to begging out of necessity and that the government has a duty to provide social security rather than penalize poverty.
- Begging Laws in Other States: While there is no nationwide law on begging, many states, including Maharashtra, continue to enforce the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act or similar state-specific laws modeled after the 1959 Act.
- Rehabilitation Initiatives (2020): The Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment proposed shifting the focus from criminalizing begging to rehabilitation efforts in ten cities, including Mumbai, to support vulnerable populations.
How have different regions in India approached the issue?
- State-Level Criminalization: Approximately 22 states and union territories have laws against begging, many based on the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. These laws criminalize begging, vagrancy, and soliciting alms, permitting arrests without a warrant. States such as Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh have implemented similar regulations.
- Decriminalization Efforts & Judicial Decisions: In 2018, the Delhi High Court ruled parts of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing begging in Delhi. In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to impose a nationwide ban on begging, acknowledging that such laws disproportionately impact the poor. Rajasthan, meanwhile, has adopted a more rehabilitative approach.
What are the arguments for and against criminalizing begging?
Arguments in favour:
- Combating Organized Begging Rackets: Criminalizing begging is seen as a way to address forced begging, where vulnerable individuals, including children and people with disabilities, are exploited by criminal groups.
- Maintaining Public Safety and Order: Authorities argue that begging causes disturbances, obstructs traffic, and may contribute to minor crimes, making public spaces less secure.
- Promoting Rehabilitation: Certain laws justify detaining beggars for rehabilitation, providing them with food, shelter, and vocational training as an alternative to relying on alms.
Argument against:
- Infringement of Fundamental Rights: Penalizing begging criminalizes poverty rather than wrongdoing, violating Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, by punishing those with no other means of survival.
- Lack of Social Security: The existence of beggars highlights shortcomings in government welfare programs, and punishing them shifts responsibility away from the state instead of addressing the root causes of poverty.
- Unfair and Arbitrary Enforcement: Many laws permit warrantless arrests, disproportionately affecting the homeless, elderly, and disabled, rather than tackling the underlying social and economic issues.
Way forward:
- Focus on Rehabilitation: Transition from penalizing begging to implementing social welfare programs that provide skill development, housing, mental health care, and support for reintegration into society.
- Legal Reforms & Judicial Monitoring: Develop a standardized national policy that emphasizes rehabilitation rather than punishment, while ensuring judicial supervision to prevent the misuse of anti-begging laws.
