Missing Link in Clean Air

North India’s air quality has taken a sharp dive in recent weeks, yet again. Alongside the immediate causes, this also points to a problem beyond emissions: enforcement. India’s State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) have expanded their efforts to keep pace with the growing scale and complexity of air pollution, yet administrative and technical constraints persist. In September, just weeks before the smog set in, the Supreme Court recognised this strain, directing the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the SPCBs of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to submit plans for tackling winter pollution and fill long-pending vacancies within three months, even through deputations or contractual hires.

The challenge is national. As of April 2025, nearly half of the 10,710 sanctioned posts across all SPCBs remained vacant, according to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Technical positions, essential for monitoring, enforcement, and laboratory analysis, were harder hit than administrative vacancies. Gujarat (~4), Rajasthan (~3), and Tripura (~2) had over twice as many technical staff per administrator, while Assam, Meghalaya, and Madhya Pradesh had fewer than one. Laboratories, too, are understaffed; Kerala, Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh reported the highest vacancy rates.

The problem runs deeper than staffing. Most SPCBs were set up in the 1970s when regulation focused on industrial emissions, but their mandates have expanded far faster than their technical and financial capacities. A study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water found that over the past 25 years, SPCB responsibilities have grown dramatically, now spanning hazardous, biomedical, solid, and construction waste under 11 additional laws since the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000. Today, they regulate industries and construction, respond to RTIs, and manage complex compliance regimes across wide jurisdictions. Persistent vacancies and resource gaps continue to constrain performance. Even so, many boards are modernising—adopting automated systems such as Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring System (CAAQMS) and Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System (OCEMS), online consent mechanisms, and digital disclosure—signalling a shift toward more transparent, data-driven governance.

Many boards, burdened by heavy workloads, remain focused on compliance processing and routine enforcement, leaving little room for proactive planning or innovation. The lack of structured knowledge systems, sustained capacity development, clear performance frameworks, and stable budgets limits their ability to meet their legal responsibilities. For instance, year-to-year variations in funding make it difficult to plan activities with consistency or continuity.

Strengthening these institutions is essential to make India’s environmental governance effective. Four interventions can make the system stronger, smarter, and more responsive.

First, enable systematic knowledge sharing across SPCBs. Several boards have developed innovative tools and practices, but these often remain confined within states due to limited mechanisms for institutional learning and exchange. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, for instance, uses industry-specific templates and auto-renewals for white-category units, reducing approval delays and improving compliance. Citizen engagement platforms like Madhya Pradesh PCB’s EnvAlert app enable real-time data access and grievance redressal, while Goa’s collaboration with IIT Goa on AI-based air quality forecasting shows how research partnerships can aid decision-making. Yet, such innovations remain isolated.

A CPCB-led national knowledge-sharing platform could bridge these silos by curating tested practices, standardising adaptable models, and fostering cross-state learning. Structured mentorship – like the Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs’ Swachh Sheher Jodi initiative, where higher-performing SPCBs guide weaker ones—could accelerate adoption. Boards such as Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, which have the most transparent and accessible Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System portals, could mentor others. Turning isolated experiments and pilots into shared institutional learning would multiply impact.

Second, invest in structured capacity building of SPCB officials. Even when promising reforms are introduced, their implementation is often limited by inadequate technical staff and overburdened teams with little time for training or upskilling. Knowledge exchange will only go so far without skilled personnel. SPCB officials often shoulder multiple roles—from inspections to compliance reporting—leaving limited time for additional training or upskilling to deliver better on their mandates. A multi-layered capacity-building programme is essential, grounded in field realities and supported by partnerships with accredited laboratories, universities, and engineering colleges.

SPCBs could also leverage the Mission Karmayogi portal to offer self-paced learning modules for new recruits. Gujarat has already pioneered such approaches–engaging PhD candidates for research, running internship schemes for science students, and involving engineering colleges as environmental auditors to offset manpower shortages. Building human capital ensures that innovation becomes institutional, not incidental.

Third, measure performance through standard indicators. The absence of consistent metrics to assess SPCB performance often leads to progress being measured by activity rather than outcomes, making it harder to identify strengths or gaps. Without consistent benchmarks, progress remains difficult to assess. A transparent performance-monitoring framework can track efficiency (consent processing timelines), enforcement (inspection frequency and quality), citizen interface (grievance redressal timelines), and monitoring accuracy (instrument calibration and data reliability).

Annual reports, which document institutional performance across monitoring, enforcement, finance, and public engagement, as mandated by both the Water Act and the Air Act, provide a legal basis for such evaluation. Templates used by the Karnataka and Goa PCBs align closely with the CPCB format prescribed in the Air Rules, 1982, serving as useful models for consistency and comparability. Linking performance metrics with innovation and transparency can strengthen public trust and move boards toward outcome-oriented governance.

Fourth, secure dedicated resources for sustained innovation.

Most boards still rely on fee-based revenues, making funding uncertain and limiting long-term planning or investment. Despite expanding mandates, SPCB budgets and equipment have not kept pace. According to the CPCB, only 10 of 28 SPCBs receive dedicated state funding; the rest depend on consent fees, authorisation charges, lab analysis fees, and environmental compensation.

Multi-year, predictable funding could help boards pilot and scale proven solutions—from remote calibration of sensors to digitised consent systems. State governments must treat pollution control as a core public service, not a fee-based activity. Stable financing and greater autonomy can shift SPCBs from reactive enforcement to proactive regulation.

India’s pollution boards are the frontline institutions protecting public health and the environment. Yet as the smog across northwest India shows, even the best directives will falter without capable institutions. Strengthening SPCBs is central to India’s fight for cleaner air and healthier cities.

Views expressed are personal. Aishwarya Tiwari is Research Analyst, and Priyanka Singh is Programme Lead at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water