By – Rajkumari Sarjita
India witnessed a construction ban in the capital city, New Delhi, as part of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) aimed at controlling air pollution in the city. The policy was enacted on November 18, 2024. Hand in hand with the GRAP rules, the air quality index of the city is generally always bad, reaching hazardous levels because of the high level of emissions from cars and two-wheeled vehicles, the big factories in the city, and the engine/day-to-day burning of crop debris in the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana. During the winter season, air mixtures, such as temperature inversion, further increased the level of pollution in the city. Because pollution reached a new extreme, the New Delhi government decided to ban construction activities, as they greatly contributed to the dust and particles filling the air. However, as a result of such a major step, there was a vast amount of controversy due to its socio-economic effects. This policy aimed to improve the quality of air and lower the number of particles in the air.
The construction industry is a key component of Delhi’s economy, deriving strength from approximately 800,000 workers. These workers are primarily migrants from rural Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan, where few jobs are available. A large population of these workers work on a daily basis to earn their basic measures, which aid in running their households. Thus, when the government imposed restrictions on construction activities, these laborers were left unemployed and without sustainable income. Such a sudden change affected the number of workers who did not have the opportunity to access funding with limited resources, were using high-interest loans, and moved out of Delhi to find jobs. The situation also posed a challenge to the families of affected workers who needed basic commodities such as food, health care, and education. All of these scarce resources, as well as a worker’s daily wage, were greatly impacted by the ban, highlighting the long- and short-term implications of such a policy.
To alleviate the plight of the construction workers due to the halt of construction activities, the Delhi government allocated a sum of ₹8,000 for each registered construction worker when it issued the relief package. This offer was supposed to be given for a limited time after construction activities were suspended. The initiative’s target was more than 90,000 construction workers, and through Aadhaar card distribution, money was expected to be seamlessly deposited into the workers’ bank accounts. First, compensation struggles are significant. The registration problem made it such that the government earmarked only a few workers for payment, which was claimed to be more than even up for offer. Additionally, it was found out that the ₹8,000 was insufficient enough for workers and families leading to severe dissatisfaction on part of trade unions. Their appeals were directed for a higher cap forecasted such that unskilled Laborers will get ₹783 per day, skilled ones ₹868 and highly skilled ones ₹954. However, compensation was only a portion of the loss experienced over this period, and even with the outlined numbers, no likeness was ever paid.
A key issue surrounding the ban was the relief provided for government-related construction. These were such that, while demand for private sector construction was snuffed out, demand for some essential public sector projects such as the construction of metro rail lines, construction of flyovers, and construction of public buildings went on unabated. This policy raised a red flag in the logic of the imposition of the ban. They contended that there was little sense in permitting government initiatives to continue when the private ones were halted because it would make pollution worse than intended. The persistence of these government projects was in itself a form of pollution; it increased dust and particulate matter, particularly in places where construction work was already ongoing. What is more, employees in government projects were not under the same bans meaning that the economic consequences of the bans were uneven on the people
The effectiveness of the construction ban in environmental terms was also a subject of discussion. Studies have estimated the contribution of construction activities to the particulate matter emission load in Delhi to be between ten and 30 percent. However, pollution produced from vehicles, waste burning, and discharges through industrial channels significantly hamper the air quality of the city. A study conducted by IIT Delhi pointed out that relatively low-density, diffuse sources of pollution such as uncontrolled dirt roads, construction, and burning contribute approximately 25%–40% of the pollution load to Northern India. These data make it evident that imposing a blanket moratorium on construction activities does not address the air quality concerns of the region. While the short-term cessation of construction work may have reduced the amount of dust generated in the urban landscape, it left the large and chronic sources of pollution unaddressed. The ban, in this context, was unfortunate, as it was palliative and failed to address the systemic drivers of pollution in the city. Any ban aimed at construction may provide a temporary advantage, but in the context of developing countries, it must be complemented by measures regarding vehicular and industrial emissions if sustainable development is to be achieved.
The macroeconomic consequences of the construction ban not only extended to muckers but also actively participated in the construction processes. Other significant losses were incurred by small- and medium-sized enterprises that manufacture cement, bricks, steel, and other construction materials. Contractors, many of whom operate on tight margins, struggled to meet project deadlines and penalized or faced legal disputes for uncompleted or late projects. This permeated the entire supply chain and affected other businesses related to the construction sector, although not directly. The unavailability of such a comprehensive compensation package for these ancillary industries further worsened the economic fallout because a large number of businesses that were banned lacked economic security. These realities of the impact only underscore the degree of the construction sector’s interdependence with the rest of the economy of Delhi and how one area being disrupted can affect the economy to such massive levels.
Some see this as only a short solution, as construction bans can reduce dust pollution but are not as effective in the long run. As observed and studied, policies need to be proactive rather than just reactive solutions applied in dire situations. Pollution is a major topic these days, and increasing vehicle regulations, usage of electric vehicles, and enhanced public transport seem to mitigate approximately 40 percent of Delhi’s air pollution, considering that it is caused by vehicular emissions. The same can be the case with industrial emissions, where regulations need to be stricter and newer technology needs to be developed. These glaring problems must be addressed sooner rather than later. Ignoring them would only mean tackling them through temporary solutions, such as construction bans, which will not be sustained for a long time.
Farming fires and the burning of crop waste from the northern states, particularly Punjab and Haryana, pose serious challenges to air quality improvement in these cities, starting with Delhi. Few initiatives have been implemented by the government, such as subsidies on stubble management equipment, but the adoption and implementation rates have been low due to farmers being unaware of them or simply being unable to afford them. To resolve this issue, farmers, the central government, and the state government should work together to find a solution. Efforts to tackle air pollution in Delhi and the surrounding regions continue to be futile unless there are concrete measures that address the impact of agricultural burning.
From the viewpoint of construction, it is possible to reduce the environmental impact of the sector by embracing greener building practices and innovative technologies. For instance, one of the solutions would be prefabricated structures, as they are less dusty than traditional constructions, which can greatly reduce construction work pollution. In addition, the use of water sprays and anti-smog guns at construction sites would further minimize the emission of particulate matter into the atmosphere. Even periodic check-ups and more stringent punishments for failure to obey any of the environmental standards would improve pollution control efforts in the construction industry.
In conclusion, the construction ban that was applied in Delhi as a response to dire environmental and human health conditions reveals the tension between promoting environmental aims and socio-economic conditions, since this was most unequally implemented and supplemented with no workable constituent measures. Although the policy was able to lower pollution levels for a time, it created further suffering for marginalized groups, mainly daily wage laborers. Significant and sustainable improvements to the quality of air cannot be made without a combination of strategies that address every type of pollution and also consider environmental and social factors. Furthering the scope of actions, reinforcing the existing laws, and building more public-private partnership (PPP) will be pivotal in achieving a cleaner and healthier Delhi.