New Delhi (ABC Live) — In April 2021, Parliament brought into force one of India’s most powerful environmental statutes: The Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021. At that point, the objective was clear and urgent. First, fragmented control would end. Second, interstate delays would reduce. Most importantly, air quality in the National Capital Region (NCR) would improve in a sustained manner.

However, nearly four years later, winter smog continues to return each year. Consequently, emergency controls—especially repeated escalation to Stage-III of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP)—now dominate policy responses. Moreover, such escalation has become routine rather than exceptional. In fact, ABC Live has already explained how this stage works and why authorities trigger it repeatedly (internal link: https://abclive.in/2025/11/12/stage-iii-of-grap-in-delhi/).

Therefore, this investigative explainer revisits the CAQM Act section by section. Thereafter, it evaluates how the law has performed from 2021 to date. Finally, it asks a direct question: has the Act reduced pollution in a lasting way, or has it only organised crisis response?

Meanwhile, readers may also consult official CAQM directions and notices on the Commission’s website (external link: https://caqm.nic.in/).

I. Why the CAQM Act was enacted: moving beyond courts

For many years, courts supervised air-pollution control in Delhi-NCR. In particular, the Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India filled gaps left by weak executive coordination. However, court-led monitoring could not force consistent inter-State cooperation. As a result, pollution sources outside Delhi continued to undermine local controls.

Consequently, Parliament chose a different route.

What changed in 2021

The CAQM Act:

• dissolved ad-hoc and court-created bodies;

• created a single statutory regulator for NCR and adjoining States;

• displaced State Pollution Control Boards on NCR-related matters; and

• asserted exclusive authority over air-quality governance in the region.

In short, India moved from court-driven environmental control to executive control. At the same time, this shift concentrated power in one institution. Nevertheless, it reduced external checks.

II. Structure of the Act: power concentrated by design

The Act organises its framework into five chapters covering scope, structure, powers, finance, and overrides. Together, these chapters create one of the most centralised environmental regulators in India. Even so, structure alone does not ensure outcomes. Therefore, the design must be tested against results.

Accordingly, the next sections examine how this structure operates in practice.

III. The Commission itself: faster decisions, weaker oversight

Exclusive jurisdiction

Section 3 grants CAQM authority that overrides State Governments and SPCBs in NCR-related matters. As a result, the law reduced long-standing coordination failures between Delhi and neighbouring States. Moreover, it centralised decision-making during pollution episodes.

Governance reality

✔ The Commission now makes decisions faster
✔ States now align institutionally
✖ Independent oversight remains absent
✖ Parliamentary review of outcomes remains limited

Thus, coordination improved. However, accountability did not improve at the same pace. In contrast, earlier court supervision offered continuous scrutiny.

IV. Powers on paper versus action on the ground

What the law allows

Under Section 12, CAQM can:

• close or restrict industries;

• halt construction activity;

• regulate electricity and water supply;

• issue binding directions across States.

At first glance, these powers appear decisive. However, enforcement patterns reveal a more complex picture. Specifically, authorities favour quick restrictions.

What authorities use most often

Therefore, regulators rely mainly on visible emergency tools. Meanwhile, deeper structural reforms receive far less attention.

V. Has air quality improved since 2021?

To answer this, ABC Live reviewed winter AQI trends year by year. Notably, severe pollution continues to cluster in the same months.

Clearly, the cycle repeats. Although authorities reduce peak days in some years, overall, the pattern remains unchanged. As a result, emergency management persists.

VI. Stubble burning: where law meets political limits

The Act exempts farmers from criminal penalties for stubble burning. Instead, it permits environmental compensation. In theory, this balances enforcement with livelihood protection. In practice, it shifts responsibility to State administrations.

Consequently, CAQM lacks strong leverage over one of the largest pollution sources. Moreover, seasonal enforcement remains inconsistent.

VII. The science gap: mandate without visibility

The Act mandates research, modelling, and health-impact assessment. However, authorities publish few outputs for public review. Because of this, many decisions appear reactive. Additionally, the absence of clear scientific benchmarks weakens public trust.

VIII. Case-law lens: Are constitutional standards met?

Indian environmental jurisprudence emphasises:

• the right to clean air under Article 21;

• the precautionary principle; and

• the polluter-pays doctrine.

Yet, repeated citizen-facing limits—school closures, mobility bans, work stoppages—raise a central concern. Namely, do polluters pay their share, or do citizens bear most of the cost? Accordingly, proportionality remains in question.

IX. Funding and autonomy: dependence continues

CAQM relies almost entirely on Central Government grants. Although audits are required, authorities disclose little detail publicly. Therefore, financial dependence continues to affect institutional independence. At the same time, outcome-linked funding remains absent.

X. The bigger picture

What worked

✔ Ended ad-hoc governance
✔ Improved inter-State coordination
✔ Enabled swift executive action

What did not

✖ No lasting reduction in pollution
✖ Weak scientific transparency
✖ Limited democratic oversight

Overall, gains remain procedural rather than environmental.

ABC Live conclusion

Ultimately, the CAQM Act, 2021, wields great authority but delivers modest results. While it replaced court supervision with executive control, it also normalised emergency governance. Unless policymakers shift toward clear targets, science-led rules, and enforceable State accountability, the Commission will continue to manage crises rather than resolve pollution.

ABC Live | Disclosure & Verification Footer

This report follows ABC Live’s public-interest and legal-analysis standards.

First, the analysis draws directly from the CAQM Act, 2021. Second, it reviews official CAQM orders and notices published on https://caqm.nic.in/. Third, it compares statutory powers with publicly visible enforcement actions since 2021.

Finally, the legal assessment applies settled constitutional principles, including the right to clean air, the precautionary principle, and the polluter-pays doctrine.

This report:

• uses only public laws and documents;

• avoids anonymous or unpublished sources;

• makes no allegation of intent or wrongdoing beyond the public record.

The views expressed support public understanding, academic discussion, and policy review.