The National Green Tribunal Friday issued notices to Punjab government, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Punjab Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) seeking their reply on a petition filed by a Phagwara-based NGO, along with another supporting Trust, submitting farmers burn the paddy stubble in state as the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) in 2012 had issued an advisory asking farmers to do so.

The intervenor petition was filed Thursday by senior Supreme Court lawyer Harvinder Singh Phoolka, on behalf of NGO Sampuran Kheti Puran Rozgar and Delhi-based Gyan Sewa Trust in the ongoing suo motu matter titled “Pollution takes a front seat as stubble fires spike in Punjab” .

“Traditionally, Farmers were not burning paddy straw and instead used to till it in the field and leave it there to decompose. About 20 years back, Ludhiana-based PAU and other agriculture expert bodies advised farmers to start burning paddy straw. The main reason was that the diseases ‘Sheath Rot, Stem Rot and Sheath Blight’ were very common in the paddy sown by the method of puddling. As such, the University advised farmers to bum the paddy straw and then sow fresh crop. The PAU specifically recommended this in their Practice Manual,” read the petition.
The human rights activist also attached a copy of the relevant pages from the Practice Manual issued by PAU in 2012.

The petition by Phoolka, an agriculture graduate from PAU, further read: “Illiterate and poor farmers started following the practice suggested by the experts and the top most institutes of the country. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that farmers merely trying to earn their livelihood cannot be blamed for starting the practice, as for all purposes they were purely following instructions given to them by experts”.

The PAU advisory reads: “1) Sheath blight disease: With more attack of this disease, grains in the panicles are not formed. Collect and burn the stubble of the diseased crop. 2) Stem rot disease: Collect and burn the stubble and straw of the diseased crop 3) Sheath rot: This fungus lives on grains and straw in the field, after harvesting the crop burn its stubble.”

Festive offer

Meanwhile, terming the petition’s contents a “complete misrepresentation of facts”, PAU vice-chancellor Dr Satbir Singh Gosal said that the advisory issued in 2012 clearly states that it was only for the paddy crop, which was infected with three diseases.

“We never gave any such recommendation to burn paddy stubble. The 2012 advisory being mentioned by the petitioner was only for plants infected with three diseases — sheath rot, sheath blight and stem rot. PAU never ever issued any advisory to farmers to burn stubble of entire paddy crop. The percentage of diseased plants is miniscule. But even then, after the terminology of this advisory was questioned earlier also, we have already replaced the word “burn” with “destroy”, and none of the latest publications carry the word “burn”. Also, the plants mostly get these diseases when they are in green stage, not after the harvest. Farmers are burning stubble after complete harvest which is an entirely different issue,” Gosal told The Indian Express.

In a statement, PAU said that in the petition in NGT, it was asserted that PAU endorsed stubble burning to address diseases like Sheath Rot, Stem Rot, and Sheath Blight in rice. “However, it is crucial to discern between historical agricultural practices and current scientific guidelines. Over time, agricultural practices have evolved significantly, with PAU increasingly emphasizing sustainable and environmentally friendly methodologies. PAU’s recommendations have consistently been specific and targeted. The University advised the destruction of stubble from diseased plants only, rather than advocating the burning of entire fields. It is essential to note that diseases such as Sheath Rot, Stem Rot, and Sheath Blight do not uniformly affect rice crops throughout Punjab; instead, they manifest in localized pockets. PAU’s recommendation was intended for fields where these diseases were identified, tailored to manage specific disease outbreaks rather than as a broad directive for all paddy fields across the state. This targeted approach was aimed at containing disease spread effectively, not as a sweeping mandate for stubble burning across Punjab. Therefore, the assertion that all paddy stubble burning was universally recommended by PAU is a misinterpretation of the University’s intent”.

“In cases, where small or marginal farmers face constraints in accessing fungicides and other chemical treatments due to financial limitations, their most viable immediate option to combat severe disease outbreaks has been to manage affected crop residues effectively. This often involves localized destruction to prevent disease spread within fields. Importantly, this practice of stubble destruction does not inherently entail burning. Alternative methods for stubble destruction such as plowing diseased stubble back into the soil or converting it into compost are viable and environmentally sustainable approaches,” it added.