Every winter, Delhi faces a recurring deterioration in air quality, followed by reactive policy responses. Delhi AQI situation becomes grieve, govt. gets into action, restrictions are imposed and then some data is thrown to prove that the other party managed things wrong thus we are controlling better. But are Delhiites getting out of it? Have we learnt our lessons? No, Nothing, Nada.
I am writing this only to weigh the differences and find what
can be done better to manage the AQI situation in Delhi. This comparison is
purely informational and based on publicly available data. it does not endorse
or criticize any government. The idea is not to support the decisions of one
govt over another. It is useful to compare the official GRAP 3 restrictions in
Delhi-NCR with anti-pollution measures that the AAP government has imposed in
past winters (or during severe smog episodes). There is substantial overlap —
but also some differences, especially in the scope and legal basis
of the actions. All my views are from the articles which were referred to and
are mentioned at relevant places.
Let us start with what were/are the differences in both approaches.
Differences / Limitations of AAP approach compared to
GRAP 3
- No
automatic trigger based strictly on AQI thresholds: The AAP’s
interventions depend on “pollution season,” forecasts, and discretionary
decisions, whereas GRAP 3 is triggered by a fixed AQI threshold (≥ 401).
- Focus
on broader prevention and long-term measures: AAP’s plans emphasized
structural changes — EV adoption, better power supply, smog towers,
awareness, controlling stubble burning outside Delhi, etc. These are more
systemic than emergency curbs.
- Implementation
and enforcement variability: Some planned measures (like smog towers,
bio-decomposer usage, dust control) need consistent enforcement and
cooperation from neighboring states; outcomes have been mixed.
- Use
of schemes like odd-even, which are widely publicized and more noticeable
to the public: Odd-even can affect large parts of population but its
efficacy on AQI reduction has been debated. For example, data from 2016
odd-even run showed limited improvement in PM2.5 / PM10 levels, likely due
to meteorological factors and pollution sources outside Delhi. (India
Today)
- Sometimes
a limited duration compared to GRAP: For instance, in 2021 the
government shut schools and construction only between Nov 14–17 for one
week, even though pollution levels remained high. (The
Times of India)
Comparison — GRAP 3 vs AAP Govt Measures
|
Aspect |
GRAP 3 (CAQM / Central) |
AAP Govt |
|
Legal/Administrative basis |
Central / CAQM; AQI-based triggers (objective) |
State government discretion; “Winter action plan” +
political decisions |
|
Trigger |
Air quality crosses threshold (AQI ≥ ~400). (The
Times of India) |
Seasonal pollution alerts, smog episodes, forecasts |
|
Construction ban / dust sources |
Yes — non-essential construction/demolition banned. (The
Times of India) |
Yes — construction sites are banned or fined during peaks.
(archive.aamaadmiparty.org) |
|
Vehicle restrictions |
Ban on older / more polluting petrol/diesel vehicles
(BS-III petrol / BS-IV diesel), diesel goods vehicles, etc. (Business
Standard) |
Sometimes odd-even scheme on private cars, with
exemptions; push for EVs / e-rickshaws. (India
Today) |
|
Diesel generator / industrial curbs |
DG sets, polluting industrial operations restricted except
essential services. (www.ndtv.com) |
Promoted 24x7 electricity to reduce DG use; efforts to
convert industries to PNG / cleaner fuel. (archive.aamaadmiparty.org) |
|
Schools & public health safeguards |
Schools up to certain grades shift to online/hybrid;
advisories for vulnerable populations. (NDTV
Special) |
Schools shut (or hybrid), work-from-home for offices
during worst smog; though duration and class levels vary. (The Indian Express) |
|
Long-term / systemic measures |
Not really — GRAP is reactive / emergency-oriented. |
Yes — EV policy, smog-towers / dust control campaigns,
anti-stubble-burning, public awareness. (The Times
of India) |
|
Dependence on external cooperation (e.g., neighboring
states, weather) |
Limited, mostly local emissions & dust. |
High — stubble burning in Punjab/Haryana, regional fuel
choices, enforcement outside Delhi matter. (The
Indian Express) |
Analysis — Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Approach
- Though
GRAP offers strong enforcement, it cannot by itself address long-term
pollution sources. GRAP 3 is effective as a standardized
emergency mechanism. Because it triggers automatically on AQI data,
its measures are predictable, enforceable, and uniform across Delhi-NCR.
It ensures drastic reductions in major pollution sources (construction
dust, old diesel vehicles, DG sets) at the moment pollution becomes
hazardous.
- AAP’s
Action Plans add value through long-term structural changes and
prevention. By focusing on EV adoption, banning coal, providing
24×7 electricity, installing smog towers, discouraging garbage/stubble
burning, the government tries to reduce the baseline pollution level — and
ideally prevent reaching “severe” levels in the first place.
- Some
limitations arise from factors beyond state control, such as transboundary
pollution and meteorology. Thus, AAP’s measures can be inconsistent or
politically constrained for example, odd-even schemes are short-lived,
enforcement of fines / dust control may vary, and many measures rely on
cooperation from surrounding states (which is difficult). Also, long-term
infrastructure (like smog towers, e-waste parks) takes time; their impact
on acute winter smog may be limited.
- GRAP’s
major limitation: It is reactive — it doesn’t prevent pollution
build-up, only curbs it after the AQI becomes “severe.” Also, since it
depends only on Delhi-NCR, it cannot address pollution sources outside
(e.g., stubble burning in neighboring states) - which remain a large
driver of winter smog.
Therefore, both approaches are complementary: GRAP 3
handles emergency response, while state-level measures aim at prevention and
long-term mitigation.
In Conclusion — How They Compare “During the Same Period”
When you look at a smog-heavy winter period (say, after
Diwali, when stubble burning and weather combine):
- The AAP
government typically tries to manage pollution through its winter
plans — dust suppression, banning garbage burning, restricting
construction, launching EV push, public awareness, sometimes odd-even.
These efforts aim to reduce emissions and pollution buildup, but they
don’t always succeed in preventing “severe” AQI because many sources are
outside Delhi’s direct control (weather, stubble burning, external
vehicles), and because enforcement/coverage may be uneven.
- Once
the pollution crosses the critical threshold (AQI ≥ 400), GRAP 3
becomes operative — bringing in emergency, legally enforceable
restrictions: banning non-essential construction, restricting most
polluting vehicles, curbing DG sets and industries, shifting schools/work
to online/hybrid, etc. This often has more immediate and enforced impact,
because it has legal grounding, central coordination, and firm directives.
But it fails to set up a system which improves the conditions for future.
Thus, while AAP’s government tries to prevent or mitigate
pollution every winter, GRAP 3 acts as the fall-back emergency brake. In
good years, the winter action plan alone might help avoid reaching GRAP 3. But
when weather and external factors push pollution high, GRAP 3 is triggered
regardless of what state government does.
I did this effort just in the hope that it will reach the
authorities and they will make the good use of it to provide the better air for
Delhi Citizens. I am in no way an expert on the subject and gained all my views
from reading the reports and news available in the public domain. This means
any views which contradict mine are welcomed in the hope that they will make me
better and more knowledgeable in the time to come.
