Delhi-NCR’s air pollution response is being redesigned around a difficult institutional shift: treating the Graded Response Action Plan, or GRAP, not merely as an emergency rulebook for bad winter days but as part of a longer-term system for identifying pollution sources, assigning responsibility and measuring results. In an interview published by Jagran, Tarun Pithode, member secretary of the Commission for Air Quality Management, said the commission’s focus was moving from restrictions imposed after pollution rises to preparedness and sustained control across the region.
That change matters because Delhi’s air pollution is not produced by a single activity, agency or season. The response described by Pithode recognises the problem as regional and multi-source, involving Delhi and districts across Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. It also places the performance of public institutions at the centre of the debate: whether departments know what they are responsible for, whether deadlines are being tracked, whether violations lead to action and, most importantly, whether enforcement actually reduces pollution.
For years, GRAP has been most visible to residents through emergency measures. When air quality deteriorates, restrictions and advisories become public-facing symbols of government action. But Pithode’s explanation suggests that such measures are only the most noticeable layer of a larger administrative system. The commission now wants the plan to work before a crisis becomes visible, by identifying the sources responsible in different areas and preparing agencies to act against them.
The institutional question is therefore not simply whether GRAP is imposed on time. It is whether the plan can convert a seasonal response into a continuous framework. Pithode said that, after the formation of CAQM, GRAP was given a more institutional character. Instead of being treated mainly as a temporary or emergency arrangement, it is being linked to advance preparation, clearly assigned responsibilities and assessment of action outcomes.
This distinction is important for urban governance. An order can be issued, an inspection can be conducted and a notice can be served without changing the activity that is generating pollution. Pithode said the commission’s approach was increasingly focused on whether a polluting activity was actually controlled and what effect that control had on air quality in the relevant area. That makes the outcome, rather than the administrative act itself, the proposed measure of performance.
The interview also outlines a chain of accountability. According to Pithode, responsibilities have been specified for different sectors and activities, with the relevant departments and officials expected to complete particular tasks within defined timelines. Monitoring and compliance mechanisms are being strengthened, he said. The intended system is one in which an agency’s role is not limited to receiving a direction; it must also demonstrate progress against an identified responsibility.
CAQM’s legal powers form another part of this framework. Pithode referred to Section 14, which gives the commission authority to act when its rules and directions are not complied with. He said the purpose of this power was not only to punish, but to ensure that the commission’s directions were taken seriously. Where violations are found, action is taken according to law. In administrative terms, this creates a route from instruction to enforcement, although the interview does not provide figures on the number of actions taken or their measured effect on regional pollution.
That missing measurement is central to the credibility of a results-based system. The interview establishes that CAQM wants to evaluate policies according to the difference they make, but it does not provide a detailed set of pollution-reduction figures, agency-wise performance data or a public scorecard for the 27 districts. The stated direction is clear; the evidence of outcomes will depend on how consistently these targets, reviews and results are published and assessed.
The regional scale makes this particularly complex. Delhi-NCR includes 27 districts spread across more than one state, and those districts do not share identical economic activities, transport patterns or pollution sources. Pithode acknowledged that coordination across states and districts is complicated because local conditions differ. At the same time, he said air pollution does not remain within administrative boundaries, making an integrated action plan and policy framework necessary.
This is one of the defining governance challenges in the region. Administrative responsibility is divided, but the air is shared. A measure adopted in one district may affect conditions elsewhere, while the source of pollution experienced in Delhi may lie beyond the capital’s boundaries. A district-by-district approach without regional coordination can therefore leave gaps, while a uniform order may fail to account for local conditions. The model described by CAQM attempts to combine a common framework with action based on the major source in each area.
Pithode’s emphasis on monitoring is significant because planning alone cannot resolve this coordination problem. He said the commission had set area-wise targets and was reviewing progress. The stated objective is to examine not just whether an order was issued, but what results followed. This approach shifts attention from compliance paperwork to environmental performance, though the supplied interview does not specify the indicators, reporting intervals or public mechanisms through which citizens can independently verify progress.
Transport illustrates why a source-based strategy cannot rely on a single intervention. Pithode said improved vehicle technology, including BS-VI, compressed natural gas and electric vehicles, was necessary but not sufficient. He also identified stronger public transport as important, pointing to metro expansion, a larger electric bus fleet and better last-mile connectivity. The underlying administrative logic is that cleaner vehicles address one part of the emissions problem, while a more convenient public transport system can reduce dependence on private vehicles.
That framing places air pollution policy within the wider urban mobility system. Metro infrastructure alone does not determine how people travel. The availability of buses, the ease of reaching stations and the quality of the final connection all influence whether residents can reduce private vehicle use. In the interview, public transport is therefore presented not as a separate mobility agenda but as one of the long-term tools available for pollution control.
The same logic applies to the use of GRAP restrictions. Emergency measures can limit certain activities when pollution levels rise, but they do not by themselves eliminate the underlying sources. The commission’s stated approach is to combine immediate action with longer-term, sector-specific goals. This means the success of GRAP should not be judged only by whether restrictions are announced during a pollution episode. It should also be judged by whether the need for repeated emergency intervention reduces over time, although the interview does not claim that this has already happened.
The policy landscape described by CAQM is consequently built around four linked functions: identifying pollution sources, assigning institutional responsibility, enforcing directions and evaluating results. These functions are spread across agencies and governments rather than controlled by one city department. Section 14 provides a legal enforcement mechanism, while the integrated plan for 27 districts provides the regional structure. Public transport investment and cleaner vehicle technology form part of the mobility response, but neither is presented as a complete solution.
The biggest unresolved issue is implementation visibility. Residents experience polluted air at street level, but responsibility is distributed across departments, districts and states. For the new approach to be understood as more than an administrative reformulation, the public would need to see how area-wise targets are defined, which agency is responsible for each source, what deadlines apply and what pollution reduction follows from each intervention. The interview confirms that CAQM is moving towards this results-based model, but it does not establish the scale of improvement achieved so far.
Delhi-NCR’s pollution challenge therefore exposes a wider urban governance problem: environmental harm may be regional while authority remains fragmented. CAQM’s account points towards a system that tries to close that gap through coordination, legal oversight and outcome-based review. Whether that system can produce cleaner air will depend on the quality of implementation and the evidence used to measure it. The next developments to watch are the publication of area-wise progress, the enforcement of assigned responsibilities and the demonstrated impact of measures covering transport and other identified pollution sources.